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
