Dmitry Beransky said: > Could someone explain the reason it was decided that http > takes precedence > over the local type value? > my $0.02 :-) let's suppose two companies, out of total coincidence, make a file format that have, for example, .XYZ let's assume they are both image formats and that the are not compatible for each other. there would be a problem embedding them in a web page because the browser, being what it is, cannot distinguish between the two of them (*without* a mime type). this happens, for example, with .DOC files. sometimes they are regular ASCII text, sometimes they are MS-Word files. the server is configured to say which is which. if you think about it, it is also a good secuity feature. if a web admin/sysadmin doesn't want people loading and executing, say, a shockwave type file because s/he knows there may be an security hole in the plug-in and doesn't want to be held responsible for what malicious users might upload to the server, that admin could set all .SWF files to text/plain and (theoretically) ensure that those types of files won't be recognised by the browser correctly. (i don't have anything against shockwave ... i just use it as an example). again, just my $0.02, but i'd like to see what other people think about my logic. z. > I would guess that between the author and the server, the > author knows > better what the object's type should be. The HTTP spec > recommends that all > servers specify a Content-Type field and most server do. > Unfortunately, > they choose to revert to a default value (text/plain, > binary/octet-stream, > etc) when they are not configured to support a particular > media type. This > happens particularly often with new media types. > > Imagine, for example, that I want to experiment with SVG > files, but my ISP > doesn't know anything about SVG, or they know that it's still an > experimental standard, or for any other reason don't want to > change the > server configuration. In the mean time, the server continues > to send my > SVG files as plain/text. What am I to do, short of switching to a > different ISP? > > Having the TYPE attribute take precedence over the > Content-Type field would > allow authors to deal with such situations, instead of > relying on server > administrators. > > Any comments? > > Regards > > >Received on Monday, 30 August 1999 10:38:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:49:18 GMT