- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:20:04 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >> The current HTTP spec contains a requirement that contradicts this >> widespread practice. It seems we should update this part of the spec >> to reflect reality (and, perhaps, nudge reality into a slightly better >> equilibrium). > > Which requirement is that? >From http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html#sec7.2.1 "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." For example, user agents also need to sniff HTTP responses with a Content-Type of */* in order to be compatible with existing Web content. Adam
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 16:20:56 UTC