- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:31:46 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Maybe we should say something like: "When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that body SHOULD be determined via the header fields Content-Type and Content-Encoding." That seems to clarify the level of conformance required. Adam On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I think the disconnect here is that HTTP folks are assuming that this > statement is made within the scope of HTTP; i.e., someone using HTTP will > take that value and figure out what to do with it. > > > On 08/04/2009, at 4:21 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> >>> It seems like Mark's proposal is the minimum required to declare victory, >>> from an HTTP standpoint at least. >>> >>> Remove this text from p3 section 3.2.1: >>>> >>>> "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." >> >> I'm not an expert at spec reading, but the spec would still say: >> >> "When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that >> body is determined via the header fields Content-Type and >> Content-Encoding." >> >> This seems false since the data type might be determined after taking >> other information into account. >> >> Adam > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 06:32:42 UTC