- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:08:26 -0700
- To: "David.Carson@nokia.com" <David.Carson@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
David, On 5/3/06, David.Carson@nokia.com <David.Carson@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > We have recently run into a case where XMLHTTPRequest is being used to > POST content, but the javascript author has failed to add the mandatory > content-type header. It's not mandatory from an HTTP POV. Certainly desirable, but not mandatory. > We were wondering what the default content type > should be. We believe that it should be the same default as the default > content type for a FORM post. I don't think a default is desirable, unless it can be shown that effectively all existing apps which don't provide a Content-Type, use the same format. Otherwise, the HTTP message would be "lying" about its meaning, and that could break existing apps. > Oddly enough, the w3 draft spec for xmlhttprequest does not even state > that you should provide a content-type when posting: > http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#dfn-send > whereas XULPlanet at least states one should be provided: > http://www.xulplanet.com/references/objref/XMLHttpRequest.html#method_se > nd > "The MIME type of the stream should be specified by setting the Content- > Type header via the setRequestHeader method before calling send." > neither say what the default should be. That sounds like good advice to me. Any objections? Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 21:08:29 UTC