Brian Smith wrote: > My suggestion is: > > 1. Remove 3.2.1 completely. I think this goes to far, as it explains the interaction between Content-Encoding and Content-Type. > 2. Remove all references to 3.2.1 (especially the one in section 5.9). > 3. Add the statement "A message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a > Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body" to section > 5.9. > > Since the "MUST" requirement for Content-Encoding is in 5.5, it makes sense > to have the "SHOULD" requirement for Content-Type in 5.9. And, the > specification should avoid duplication as much as possible. That makes sense. Related issue: Section 5.5 currently is phrased as if Content-Encoding only works in presence of Content-Type: "The entity-header field "Content-Encoding" is used as a modifier to the media-type. When present, its value indicates what additional content codings have been applied to the entity-body, and thus what decoding mechanisms must be applied in order to obtain the media-type referenced by the Content-Type header field." It seems to me we should rephrase that as well. BR, JulianReceived on Thursday, 9 April 2009 15:20:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC