- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:10:01 +1000
- To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Given that, is the proposal acceptable as worded? On 05/06/2009, at 8:40 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > 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 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 00:10:39 UTC