W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2009

[Bug 7744] Is sniffing required?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:34:25 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MsXE9-0002W1-4w@wiggum.w3.org>

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |mjs@apple.com

--- Comment #3 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2009-09-29 07:34:24 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Are you referring to the end of
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-01#section-1>?
> I agree that this makes it optional, but I think both HTML5 and MIMESNIFF could
> be clearer about that. For instance, the abstract says:
>    Many web servers supply incorrect Content-Type headers with their
>    HTTP responses.  In order to be compatible with these servers, user
>    agents must consider the content of HTTP responses as well as the
>    Content-Type header when determining the effective media type of the
>    response.  This document describes an algorithm for determining the
>    effective media type of HTTP responses that balances security and
>    compatibility considerations.
> Note the "must consider the content". That doesn't sound optional at all.

I suspect this was an error in draft-abart-mime-sniff - it looks to me like it
inadvertantly used the word "mist" in a non-normative context. The draft
capitalizes RFC2119 keywords when it means them. This should be reported as a
comment on MIMESNIFF.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 07:34:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:40 UTC