On 23 August 2012 15:56, Shmuel Krakower <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi sebb, > Why would you not specify content type in a separate http header config > element? How the content type defers from other headers?
The code already supports the use of the MIME type. And it's slightly more awkward to use a separate config element. Also, for POST requests it may need to be overridden. Given that there is the MIME type processing already, I think we don't actually need another GUI field. So I think the behaviour for PUT/PATCH should be: If MIME type is specified, use that, otherwise default to whatever header has been provided. This allows a local override of any header config, and allows the header config to be omitted for PUT/PATCH. POST is a bit different as it supports multipart and form-encoded content-type. > Shmuel. > בתאריך 2012 8 23 15:49, מאת "sebb" <[email protected]>: > >> On 23 August 2012 11:46, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> > There is currently a field called "Content encoding". >> > >> > This does not relate to the Content-Encoding header, but is the >> > encoding for the content. >> > >> > It would probably be clearer if the field was renamed "Charset". Agreed? >> > >> > Also, PUT and PATCH methods require the Content-Type to be specified. >> > At present this has to be done via a Header Manager or via the MIME >> > type if a file body is used. >> > >> > Perhaps we should add "Content-Type" to the GUI, e.g after "Charset" >> > (if renamed) ? >> >> Actually, I've just discovered that the MIME type can be used for this. >> >> > The "Post Body" tab actually applies to PUT and PATCH as well, so >> > should be renamed. >> > Perhaps "Content Body" ? >>
