- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:06:37 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13995 --- Comment #12 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2011-09-16 09:06:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > I can't find any MUST requirements at all in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.17 or related sections, how would > this be a violation? Whether or not there is a MUST doesn't tell you anything about whether it's a requirement or not. You seem to be confused about when or not BCP14 keywords need to be used; see RFC 2119 for details. Note that there are entire RFCs without any BCP 14 keywords; that doesn't affect their "normativeness" at all. That being said, <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.7.2.1> says: "Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. 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"." But also note: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155> > As with <video>, I see 3 options here: > > 1. Always obey Content-Type > > 2. Always ignore Content-Type > > 3. Add sniffing for WebVTT to > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff-03 and use the sniffed > type, not the official content type. If spec'd as I imagine it, this would > allow serving WebVTT as text/plain, but serving it as application/ttml+xml > would fail. > > (1) is unacceptable, (2) is what we've implemented, but (3) could be tolerable > if <video> were also made consistent with that. I don't think (1) is unacceptable. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 09:06:45 UTC