- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:26:51 +1000
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think the disconnect here is that HTTP folks are assuming that this statement is made within the scope of HTTP; i.e., someone using HTTP will take that value and figure out what to do with it. On 08/04/2009, at 4:21 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> > wrote: >> It seems like Mark's proposal is the minimum required to declare >> victory, >> from an HTTP standpoint at least. >> >> Remove this text from p3 section 3.2.1: >>> >>> "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." > > I'm not an expert at spec reading, but the spec would still say: > > "When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that > body is determined via the header fields Content-Type and > Content-Encoding." > > This seems false since the data type might be determined after taking > other information into account. > > Adam -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 06:27:31 UTC