- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:20:23 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155> > > The text in question is in 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. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient SHOULD >> treat it as type "application/octet-stream". >> > Two possible approaches AFAICT; > > 1) remove the text "If and only if the media type is not given by a > Content-Type field", leaving the specification of the sniffing algorithm > to a separate document (possibly with some further constraints to > discourage sniffing unless it's controlled, but this would be > necessarily vague), or > > 2) specify the algorithm to use if sniffing is done by referring to > draft-abarth-mime-sniff directly. > > Thoughts? Other suggestions? 2) is problematic, as a normative downref to draft-abarth-mime-sniff would be a downref; I don't think this is acceptable even if it's for an optional feature. 1) sounds good to me. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 19:21:10 UTC