Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

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.
> <> 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

Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 00:10:39 UTC