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 -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen, Carsten Orthbandt pixeltamer.net c/o Carsten Orthbandt Baumschulenstrasse 102 12437 Berlin +49 (0) 30 34347690
