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

Re: Update on issue 155 (Content Sniffing)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:22:05 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9BBC8394-CB48-4D4E-B949-A35D65065FC2@mnot.net>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Hi Adam,

Actually, there were a number of people arguing in the Stockholm  
meeting that HTTP does indeed define the interpretation of the data  
type of a message, which is why the proposal to delete it was made.

As you point out, this is just a note, and doesn't affect conformance;  
it is still completely conformant to sniff the type of a message  
(because what you *do* with the data type is still up to the  
application).

Cheers,


On 30/07/2009, at 12:50 PM, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:28:37 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de 
>> > wrote:
>>> we discussed the issue of content sniffing again during the  
>>> HTTPbis WG
>>> meeting and the general feeling was that we were going to far with  
>>> the
>>> statement:
>>>
>>> "Note that neither the interpretation of the data type of a  
>>> message nor
>>> the behaviors caused by it are defined by HTTP; this potentially
>>> includes examination of the content to override any indicated type
>>> ("sniffing")."
>>>
>>> The proposal is to remove this altogether.
>>>
>>> See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155#comment: 
>>> 3>
>>>
>>> Feedback appreciated,
>>
>> This would disallow e.g. the behavior of <img src> or <script src>  
>> as exhibited by Web browsers as I understand things. Having said  
>> that, notes are typically non-normative so maybe it does not?
>
> Maybe we ought to say:
>
> "Note that neither the interpretation of the data type of a message
> nor the behaviors caused by it are defined by HTTP."
>
> No one seems to be arguing about this statement, but it's non-obvious
> to folks reading the spec and therefore worth noting,
>
> Adam
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 18:22:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT