- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:24:23 +0200
- To: mike@w3.org
- Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
(removing public-html from the cc list) On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:13:02 +0200, <mike@w3.org> wrote: > We don't agree that the HTTP RFC requires this interpretation. We believe > that if a user agent includes an accept header that specifies text/css in > a request, that is an indication not that text/css is an acceptable > response for an image but that it can process text/css in some > circumstances. In general the User Agent does not know what type of > resource to anticipate when it makes a request. It is a special case when > it does, as a result in this case of making a retrieval linked to a > specific element in a resource already retrieved. Has the Working Group studied HTTP content negotiation before making this claim? Say I got a file index.css and a file index.htm and Apache MultiViews is enabled. If the user agent does a request _all_ the time to /index with Accept: text/html, text/css index.htm will _always_ be returned. Even for <link href="/index" rel="stylesheet">. That seems wrong. > Your comment on 2.3.2 HTTP Request: >> On another point, Content-Type of the response for both image and style >> sheet requests is simply ignored. The image type is determined through >> sniffing and in case of a linked style sheet it is simply parsed as >> CSS. This is more or less required for user agents if they want to >> support >> web pages out there. > > Working Group Resolution: > We accept that real browsers have to adopt many heuristics and take a > pragmatic approach. The intention of mobileOK Basic is to point out to > content providers that mislabeling the content is an error. We certainly > do not endorse the mislabeling. Fair enough. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 07:25:04 UTC