- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 20:40:37 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote: > "It is a serious error for the response body to be inconsistent with > the assertions made about it by the MIME headers. Web software SHOULD > NOT attempt to recover from such errors by guessing, but SHOULD report > the error to the user to allow intelligent corrective action." > > While this might be technically correct, it is missing a very important > piece of information; that the media type may be guessed only in a very > specific case. IMO, RFC 2616 section 7.2.1 does a better job at > explaining the situation; > > "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 [...]" The draft text above is correct as it stands - if there's no media type provided, the error case we're discussing can't occur. You're arguing that it would be worth saying that it's OK to guess in the case where there's no media-type header? Not sure that's worth the trouble of asserting, but if people really want to... -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 23:40:39 UTC