Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155]

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