W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: no mention of BOMs in sniffing algorithm

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:44:44 -0500
To: ryan <ryan@theryanking.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1187707484.29837.941.camel@pav>

On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 17:28 -0700, ryan wrote:
> Section 4.7.4, which deals with sniffing for different content types,  
> has no mention of BOMs.[1]
> In implementing this, I encountered a case where this failed:
>    http://www.armencomp.com/tradelog/trader_tax_topics.rss

Thanks for finding a specific case.

It's awkward for this WG to use that document as a test case,
as it's not clear that we have license to republish it,
create derivative works, etc.

Would you please create a file that exhibits the same issue,
and attach it to a message to this WG?

There are perhaps other places you could put it and still
make it clear that you're contributing it to this WG, but
that's the simplest one that occurs to me just now.

> Though this resource should be a problem with the sniffing algorithm  
> (since its served as text/plain, which shouldn't trigger the feed vs  
> html sniffing), it still illustrates the problem.
> Also, Firefox treats this as a feed, while Safari treats it as plain  
> text.


Have you given any thought to a format for expected results
for a test case such as this?

I'm interested to start capturing claims about which implementation
passes which test in machine-readable form.
I had fun doing this with the GRDDL tests; see

> -ryan
> 1. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#content-type3
 aka http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#content-type3

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 14:45:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC