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