- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:40:50 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Works for me. On 08/04/2009, at 11:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 22:41:34 UTC