- From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:22:02 -0500
- 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 19:22:44 UTC