- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 13:06:48 +1000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Are you referring to this: > The entity-header field "Content-Type" indicates the media type of > the entity-body sent to the recipient or, in the case of the HEAD > method, the media type that would have been sent had the request > been a GET. in p3 5.9? If so, I think you're reading too much into 'indicates', and IIRC this discussion has been had on list before. The question is not what defines the media type, it's what an application can or cannot do with that information once the indication is available. On 02/06/2009, at 12:23 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Mark Nottingham wrote: >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155> > > I believe you misunderstand the organization of the specification. > What > RFC 2616 says is that the media type of the entity body of a message > is > defined by the Content-Type header; if there is no Content-Type > header, > then the media type is defined by the implementation; if the implemen- > tation fails to define a media type, assume application/octet-stream. > > If you want to say that the media type of the entity body is defined > by > the implementation and not the Content-Type header, then you have to > change the definition of the Content-Type header. The phrase you pro- > pose to remove is there to avoid conflicting definitions of what the > media type of the entity body is. > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http:// > www.websitedev.de/ -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 03:07:25 UTC