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: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:15:39 -0700
Cc: "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C9C85435-3EFB-42FD-B250-C63D4AB9CCBA@mnot.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Hi Anne,

I think the general feeling here is that by calling out sniffing as a  
possibility, it will encourage it. As it stands, sniffing is not  
prohibited, it just isn't advertised as something that should be done.  
I.e., the content sniffing spec will NOT be in conflict with HTTP.  
Does that work for you?

Cheers,


On 05/08/2009, at 5:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:22:05 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>  
> wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Can we add a note to that effect then?
>
> Proposal:
>
>     Note that the behavior caused by the data type
>     is not defined by HTTP; this potentially
>     includes examination of the content to override
>     any indicated type ("sniffing").
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 18:16:27 GMT

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