Am Mittwoch, den 05.12.2007, 10:20 +0100 schrieb Thomas Lotze:
Fred Drake wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 5:55 PM, Thomas Lotze <thomas@thomas-lotze.de> wrote:
It wasn't even about whitespace around the / but leading whitespace in front of the major type.
Wow. It probably didn't occur to me that would be screwed up.
I've now looked up RfC 2045 which states that there is to be no whitespace within the MIME type specification, i.e. in particular none around the slash. This requires a change to zope.publisher.contenttype. OTOH it's probably up to us how to treat whitespace surrounding the string specifying MIME type:
- Either we decide that such a string should always follow the RfC exactly and contain no whitespace at all (which makes the way zope.publisher.http handles it the correct way),
- or we allow for it to be some possibly whitespace-padded string that contains a valid MIME spec, which would allow for surrounding whitespace, but not space around the slash.
I'd prefer the first option for clarity. Is there any reason to be forgiving regarding whitespace in the first place?
That depends on the container format and therefore it's the responsibility of the container (e.g. a HTTP header) to remove the whitespace. Note that AFAICT RFC 2045 section 5.1 (that's what you're referring to AFAICT) defines the MIME type specification as done with the Content-Type header for MIME messages without defining exactly how the actual type relates to the container. IMHO we should not pay attention to whitespace. Christian -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany www.gocept.com - ct@gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development