- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:10:39 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Carsten Orthbandt" <carsten@pixeltamer.net>
- Cc: "Web API WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > I have to agree here. If a recipient decides to do content-type guessing, > the fact that the type is not what was tested is not an error. One more > reason not to guess in the first place. But it might be what's tested just invalid - if the user expected the sniffing behaviour he'd then be wondering why it wasn't getting a document, or any errors, in situations that rely on guesswork of content, it should be left to the browser what that guesswork is. > However, IMHO the right thing to do here is to attach a proper > content-type header in the first place. Yes, it's not an error that developers should ever be seeing, just ensure there's a content type appropriate to the content, so I think it's a pretty artificial problem. Jim.
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 08:10:55 UTC