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

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:10:01 +1000
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Message-Id: <C3F022EA-5E7C-475F-BE7E-3ED5DD4AB800@mnot.net>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Given that, is the proposal acceptable as worded?

On 05/06/2009, at 8:40 AM, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> The first part 'should' read 'MUST', as Julian mentions below, the  
>> choice
>> is in interpretation, not the value of the Content-Type header;
>
> This isn't workable.  The content sniffing algorithm needs to
> distinguish between an absent Content-Type header and a Content-Type
> header with the value "application/octet-stream".  Making this a MUST
> requirement forces the algorithm to treat them the same.
>
> Adam


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 00:10:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT