W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: review of content type rules by IETF/HTTP community

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:50:13 +0200
Message-ID: <46D1D975.6010900@gmx.de>
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Robert Burns wrote:
>> Robert Burns wrote:
>>> However, after further testing, both Opera and Firefox treat the file 
>>> as HTML. Here's the HTTP header's they get that they treat as HTML
>> ...
>>> Content-Type: unknown
>> Since that can't actually be parsed as a content type (no '/', for 
>> example), this is treated identically to a missing Content-Type header 
>> by Firefox.
>> Which is what you should do if you don't know the type.  No need to 
>> invent an "unknown" type.
> My mistake. I changed it to 'unknown/' and now Firefox instead tries to 
> download the file (note: before it was treating it as HTML and not 
> unknown so it did make a difference). Opera and Safari are also putting 
> up the download dialog.
> However, the point of registering a new IANA MIME type 'unknown' and 
> issuing an accompanying RFC, is to raise awareness about the issue.  
>  From the bug cited earlier[1], it looks to me that Apache is unwilling 
> to fix their bug (from what I can tell you even submitted a patch fro 
> them). So registering an 'unknown' MIME type would let server admin's 
> (and probably more importantly Apache vendors) know to change 
> DefaultType to 'unknown'. Note that this isn't for the case when the 
 > ...

1) Where's the advantage over "application/octet-stream"?

2) You may want to look at 

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2007 19:50:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC