- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:01:01 +0200
- To: Carsten Orthbandt <carsten@pixeltamer.net>
- CC: public-webapi@w3.org
Carsten Orthbandt wrote: > Julian Reschke schrieb: >> You're violating a SHOULD level requirement of HTTP/1.1 then. Sorry, but >> that's what you get for that :-). >> >>> - I definately dont want to see future browsers choke on that >> Actually, I'm tempted to say it would be good for the web if more UAs >> would flag missing content-type headers. >> > > I tend to disagree. > SHOULD means "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to > ignore a particular item". > > The (IMHO) valid reason here is: > - redundant header overhead > - the UA isn't even meant to interpret the response, so it doesn't need > any information on how to parse it I think I have to disagree here. HTTP messages carry a content-type header for many reasons; just because you don't think it's needed in your case, and feel it makes the response too big, isn't sufficient to leave it out. And yes, the *UA* is meant to interpret the response; it's the recipient of the response. In this case, the UA (as defined in RFC2616) is the combination of the browser + the client-side scripts running in it. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 08:01:17 UTC