W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence of media type, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:47:53 +0100
Message-ID: <5270D5C9.4090004@gmx.de>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics.all@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-10-30 09:51, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> I have to say that I don't consider this sentence to be useless.
>
> As far as I remember, there are other specs (mail?) that say that
> text/plain is the default. So some implementers may be used to this, and
> apply it to http, too.
>
> Also, while every natural language text has to assume that the reader
> uses a certain amount of rational thinking, specs are usually written
> with a somewhat reduced expectation in that respect, not because the
> average reader is particularly dumb, but because the consequences of
> interpreting something wrong are different than the consequences of
> getting something wrong when e.g. reading a novel.
>
> So I don't see any reason for not keeping that sentence. Even if it
> doesn't help, it definitely doesn't hurt.

So what exactly does it mean in *practice* to treat something as 
"arbitrary data". What do you expect a browser to do in that case?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 09:48:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC