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

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:23:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4A394299.9000309@mit.edu>
To: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Joe D Williams wrote:
> Sorry Adam, I am saying any UA sniffing except the file extension is 
> fruitless in the cases of <audio> and <video> given the spec group of 
> content types allowed for these elements. In particular, the served 
> content type is unpredicable and there is nothing inside the file that 
> UA needs to know about before passing this type of file to the handler.

1) I'm not quite clear on the distinction between "UA" and "handler" 
that you're drawing here.  Can you clarify what you mean?  In 
particular, if you claim that data-sniffing is not needed, then why is 
extension-sniffing needed?

2) Sniffing the file extension instead of the content significantly 
complicates server-side solutions that, say, send different content 
based on query params in the URL.  Of course these should arguably send 
a Content-Type header anyway.

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 19:23:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:04 GMT