- From: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:43:18 -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 1:09 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > 2009/4/1 Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>: >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >>> 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. > > That about the sentence below? > > "Content-Type specifies the media type of the underlying data." The definition of the Content-Type header in 14.17 says all that needs saying about the protocol IMO. > > Are you suggesting we remove Section 7.2.1 entirely No, just that paragraph. Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 17:43:55 UTC