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

Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:30:39 +0200
Message-ID: <49DCA6FF.4040105@gmx.de>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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.

First of all, we're only discussing Content-Type, *not* Content-Encoding 
right?

That being said, in the spirit of defining the meaning of the message, 
not it's processing, how about:

"When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that
body is declared using the header fields Content-Type and Content-Encoding."

?

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 13:31:27 GMT

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