On 04/13/2012 12:15 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote: > fre 2012-04-13 klockan 11:44 -0300 skrev Marcus Kool: > >> There is no formal definition in the RFC of what a "file extension" >> is. So the question is: is the file extension of >> http://zzz.com/1409303.mp4?p1=2012-xxx >> "mp4" ? > > The use of file extension is a major bug in the ICAP protocol imho.
Yes, but primarily because the "extension" is not clearly defined. This is something we can address in ICAP Errata, I guess: Provide a definition of what should be considered a "file extension", with a disclaimer that not all agents will use the definition provided. It would not solve all the problems but would be better than doing nothing. >> If yes, I will file a bug report. > > I think so. I agree that is is reasonable to ignore CGI query parameters when looking for an elusive "file extension". > But it's non-trivial to define what an file extension is in > HTTP terms as you probably know. > > Last in URL-path? > Embedded in query parameters? > From Content-Disposition? > Derived from Content-Type? I wonder if there is some RFC that tried to solve this problem already. We could consider their definition for the ICAP Errata then. Thank you, Alex.
