Re: processing of ICAP Transfer-Ignore options

From: Henrik Nordström <henrik_at_henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:34:36 +0200

sön 2012-04-15 klockan 22:07 -0300 skrev Marcus Kool:

> Are you saying that you want to use the Content-Type header as the
> main guide for determining the "file extension" ?

Yes, when there is a usable content-type.

> I think that any change should stay close to the vague definitions
> of the ICAP RFC. The text explaining the Transfer-Complete gives an
> example of "bat" which is probable the old Windows .BAT command file
> which probably has a Content-Type of text/plain.
> IMO using the Content-Type will not have the desired behavior.

An implementation which is close to browser file type detection is
preferred, but staying away from content sniffing.

> At the time that the ICAP RFC was written there were hardly any CGI scripts
> and I believe that the intention was that the suffix of the URL was
> the "file extension". Today, with the CGI parameters one could argue
> that they should be stripped before determining the "file extension".

There was plenty of CGI scripts even then. But not many serving other
content than text/html.

> Anyway, clarity is the most important thing here and I suggest to
> move this discussion to the ICAP discussion forum.

Clarity in a pile of mud...

Regards
Henrik
Received on Mon Apr 16 2012 - 07:35:56 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 16 2012 - 12:00:09 MDT