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

Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:40:50 +1000
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <ED9714C0-DF48-4663-B464-0AD66F638273@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Works for me.

On 08/04/2009, at 11:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 22:41:34 GMT

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