- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:40:27 -0700
- To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > The first part 'should' read 'MUST', as Julian mentions below, the choice > is in interpretation, not the value of the Content-Type header; This isn't workable. The content sniffing algorithm needs to distinguish between an absent Content-Type header and a Content-Type header with the value "application/octet-stream". Making this a MUST requirement forces the algorithm to treat them the same. Adam
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 22:41:24 UTC