- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:49:07 +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 don't think a SHOULD is necessary here; 'via' says that they are part of the process, not necessarily the whole process. SHOULD is a pretty poor way of clarifying conformance, after all :) I could see s/via/using/ if you think it would help... On 08/04/2009, at 4:31 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > Maybe we should say something like: > > "When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that > body SHOULD be determined via the header fields Content-Type and > Content-Encoding." > > That seems to clarify the level of conformance required. > > Adam > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> > wrote: >> 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/ >> >> -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 06:49:49 UTC