W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:22:02 -0500
Message-ID: <486D26DA.5060305@rowe-clan.net>
To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Dave Singer wrote:
> 
> At 18:17  +0200 3/07/08, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> The way to signal "unknown" is not to send a Content-Type header at 
>> all. As far as I understand, this is what happens with httpd trunk 
>> when you set the DefaultType to "none".

Agreed.

> or, it seems, "application/octet-stream".  From HTTP 1.1:
> 
> Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a 
> Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. 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. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient SHOULD treat 
> it as type "application/octet-stream".

Your interpretation makes no sense... it does not say that sniffing the
binary/octet-stream is permitted, it says that it is to treat it as
opaque data.

> It does seem as if sniffing when there is a content-type header is 
> flat-out forbidden.  I.e. the presence of content-type was supposed to 
> serve *exactly* what the "I mean it" extension is doing...
> 
> Next up:  a server that always adds the "I mean it" attribute, even when 
> it doesn't, and the subsequent invention of the "No, really, come on, 
> you have to believe me, scout's honor, I really truly mean it" extension.

ROFL :)
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 19:22:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:19 GMT