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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC