- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:39:04 +0200
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- CC: Carsten Orthbandt <carsten@pixeltamer.net>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Jim Ley wrote: > > "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. Well, yet another reason not to rely on guessing. If it hurts, don't do it. >> 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. +1 Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 08:39:34 UTC