Carsten Orthbandt wrote:
Julian Reschke schrieb:
You're violating a SHOULD level requirement of HTTP/1.1 then. Sorry, but
that's what you get for that :-).
- I definately dont want to see future browsers choke on that
Actually, I'm tempted to say it would be good for the web if more UAs
would flag missing content-type headers.
I tend to disagree.
SHOULD means "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
ignore a particular item".
The (IMHO) valid reason here is:
- redundant header overhead
- the UA isn't even meant to interpret the response, so it doesn't need
any information on how to parse it
I think I have to disagree here.
HTTP messages carry a content-type header for many reasons; just because
you don't think it's needed in your case, and feel it makes the response
too big, isn't sufficient to leave it out.
And yes, the *UA* is meant to interpret the response; it's the recipient
of the response. In this case, the UA (as defined in RFC2616) is the
combination of the browser + the client-side scripts running in it.
Best regards, Julian
