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: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:01:51 +1000
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <10CEA59C-2D0D-4230-91BD-603D2A9A0D93@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
OK. Please regenerate the diff with this change. It doesn't sound like  
people feel we need to close off the possibility of sniffing encoding,  
so I think the rest can stay the same...


On 06/06/2009, at 8:23 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> "Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a  
>>> Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body,  
>>> unless that information is unknown."
>> I read that as effectively equivalent to the current text, but  
>> sure; it is more explicit about when the SHOULD can be violated.
>> ...
>
> I'm pretty sensitive to this kind of SHOULD requirements, because of  
> all the crap I've seen servers putting into WebDAV metadata, because  
> the implementors thought they had to (like providing content  
> language info defaulting to the server's locale, or time stamps  
> defaulting to Jan 01, 1970).
>
> BR, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 01:02:34 GMT

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