- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:41:59 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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"). > """ > ... The second part sounds good. The first part, now that sniffing isn't mentioned there anymore, makes "application/octet-stream" a default at SHOULD level. The definition of "application/octet-stream" in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2046.html#rfc.section.4.5.1> has: "The recommended action for an implementation that receives an "application/octet-stream" entity is to simply offer to put the data in a file, with any Content-Transfer-Encoding undone, or perhaps to use it as input to a user-specified process." It's not really the intent to make *that* the default, right? BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 20:42:43 UTC