On 04/13/2012 03:42 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> fre 2012-04-13 klockan 13:21 -0600 skrev Alex Rousskov:
>
>> 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.
>
> ICAP was designed for HTTP. HTTP does not have file name extensions,
> HTTP have content types.
Sure, I am just trying to find a way to improve compatibility of ICAP
agents, even though the ICAP protocol itself is using wrong concepts
when defining what was meant as a pretty useful feature.
Cheers,
Alex.
Received on Sun Apr 15 2012 - 01:12:04 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Apr 15 2012 - 12:00:07 MDT