- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:01:41 +1000
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.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". with """ 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