W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:01:41 +1000
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3B91214C-057E-44C4-8961-23D4E0441E78@mnot.net>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Revised proposal:

Replace this text in p3 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".

If the Content-Type field is not present in a message with a body, the  
recipient SHOULD assume that the message was sent with a Content-Type  
of "application/octet-stream".

Note that neither the interpretation of the data type of a message nor  
the behaviours caused by it are not defined by this specification;  
this potentially includes examination of the content to override the  
indicated type ("sniffing").

On 03/06/2009, at 11:40 AM, Mark Baker wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> Wors for me, although I don't know that the last sentence is really
>> necessary. Are you explicitly removing application/octet-stream as  
>> a default
>> if no other type is found or derived?
>> Others?
> I don't know what that last sentence means, in particular
> "higher-level applications".
> Mark.

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 06:02:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC