Re: RFC2068 question : is Content-Type mandatory ?
Graham Leggett <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.mod-proxy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Peter Van Biesen wrote: > I've run into a webserver ( www.bea.com ) that does not send the > Content-Type headerline back. Default behaviour of the proxy code is to > add "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1". However, this will > render the page in plaintext in stead of html. This behaviour is in the Apache core, not the proxy code. > I've read the rfc but I'm not entirely sure, as I understand it, if you > send content back, Content-Type and Content-Encoding are mandatory, no ? > Anyway, if not, I'd vote to not add the text/plain line and just send > the page on to the browser without a Content-Type field. According to RFC2616, in the event of a missing content type, the application can either try intelligently guess the content type by looking at the content, or it should fall back to application/octet-stream. Apache however specifies a directive DefaultType for what the default content-type should be should one not be specified, and this directive defaults to text/plain, which in theory violates the RFC. Changing this to text/html will work around the problem. BTW: The RFC you should be looking at is RFC2616, not RFC2068, which is obsolete. Regards, Graham -- ----------------------------------------- [email protected] "There's a moon over Bourbon Street tonight..."