W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:25:14 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640903311725s162c8da8yaf74ca2e056b65c4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
>>> When different user agents use different sniffing algorithms, content
>>> authors pay a large cost, both in terms of compatibility and in terms
>>> of security.  For user agents that wish to perform sniffing, I think
>>> we'd be doing the Web a service by specifying which algorithm they
>>> should use.
>>
>> I agree, which is why I suggested a link from 2616bis to the
>> algorithm.  Do you feel that to be insufficient?  If so, why?
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about which document should contain the
> algorithm,

Good 8-)

> but I think we're better off making the algorithm normative
> (for those agents that wish to sniff) rather than informative.

I don't know what it means for an algorithm to be normative.  Can you
elaborate, perhaps by offering the text you'd ideally like to see in
the HTTPbis spec (assuming the algorithm will be in a separate spec)?

Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 00:25:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT