RE: ACTION-472: New Mime-web-info draft

Wasn't there a proposed (or implemented) "I really mean the content-type
header please don't sniff" HTTP header?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:50 AM
To: Eric J. Bowman
Cc: nathan@webr3.org; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Jonathan Rees; Larry Masinter; Noah Mendelsohn; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-472: New Mime-web-info draft

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Eric J. Bowman wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
>>
>> Aye, and I guess classing some URIs as "media types" based on the
>> first x chars of the lexical form of the URI would not be a good idea
>> (Opacity and all).
>>
>
> It's a fine debate to have on rest-discuss, where we can talk about the
> various philosophies of how self-descriptive messaging might function,
> without limiting ourselves to the constraints imposed by HTTP.  The
> HTTP WG would be the right forum to suggest, in the absence of a
> Content-Type header, falling back to some other header which allows
> URIs as tokens -- without having anything to do with media types.  Here,
> though, we should treat decisions like the registry being targeted at
> humans or not being URI-extensible (or existing at all), as having
> already been made, IMO.

The current fallback is sniffing, not another header. Adding a new header 
won't solve the issues outlined by Larry's document.
That said, minting URIs to query a registry might be helpful.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 15:44:13 UTC