Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155]

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/