- From: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:46:08 -0400
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.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 12:20 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > 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." Thanks. I would be happy to remove that text, not to encourage sniffing, but because it has nothing to do with the HTTP protocol. Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 16:46:44 UTC