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

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:01:19 -0700
Message-ID: <4A4AA74F.7020501@mit.edu>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Note that Gecko, at least, sniffs all HTTP responses without a 
>> Content-Type header, and after that treats them all effectively as 
>> metadata-provided.  It sounds like doing that is fundamentally 
>> incompatible with this specification, though, unless we teach our 
>> sniffer to recognize video/audio types by data, not just by extension...
> 
> Generally I would encourage you to sniff based on data and not extension 
> for anything sent over HTTP anyway.

In that case we'd typically sniff the videos as application/octet-stream.

Which raises an interesting question.  If a <video> points to data that 
has Content-Type metadata that says it's application/octet-stream.... 
I'd say that the UA should ignore that and look at the actual data just 
like it would if the MIME type is not set.

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 00:02:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:07 GMT