- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:30:39 +0200
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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. First of all, we're only discussing Content-Type, *not* Content-Encoding right? That being said, in the spirit of defining the meaning of the message, not it's processing, how about: "When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that body is declared using the header fields Content-Type and Content-Encoding." ? BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 13:31:27 UTC