- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:29:49 +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>
On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:01 AM, 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"). > """ I think that conflicts with my analysis in the mime-respect TAG finding. I would prefer that no Content-Type means that the server doesn't know the media type, thereby allowing the recipient to guess. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 08:30:27 UTC