W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:26:51 +1000
Cc: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EE50ECF1-7FFD-43A9-A23E-2877D7593F18@mnot.net>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC