W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155]

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:55:23 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0904072355h7ba65c42na369cd0e0a44bae1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now we're beyond my expertise.  :)

I think the point is to recommend using these headers but let
conforming implementations use additional information if they need to.
 Maybe something like:

"Implementations MAY use additional information (such as request
context, response headers, or the entity body itself) in determining
the data type, but [doing so can have security consequences; see
Section X.Y.Z]."

Adam


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> I don't think a SHOULD is necessary here; 'via' says that they are part of
> the process, not necessarily the whole process. SHOULD is a pretty poor way
> of clarifying conformance, after all :)
>
> I could see s/via/using/ if you think it would help...
>
>
> On 08/04/2009, at 4:31 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should say something like:
>>
>> "When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that
>> body SHOULD be determined via the header fields Content-Type and
>> Content-Encoding."
>>
>> That seems to clarify the level of conformance required.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the disconnect here is that HTTP folks are assuming that this
>>> statement is made within the scope of HTTP; i.e., someone using HTTP will
>>> take that value and figure out what to do with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/04/2009, at 4:21 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems like Mark's proposal is the minimum required to declare
>>>>> victory,
>>>>> from an HTTP standpoint at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remove this text from p3 section 3.2.1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its
>>>>>> content
>>>>>> and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the
>>>>>> resource."
>>>>
>>>> I'm not an expert at spec reading, but the spec would still say:
>>>>
>>>> "When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that
>>>> body is determined via the header fields Content-Type and
>>>> Content-Encoding."
>>>>
>>>> This seems false since the data type might be determined after taking
>>>> other information into account.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 06:56:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT