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

Re: review of content type rules by IETF/HTTP community (new thread?)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:55:29 -0500
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1187715329.29837.985.camel@pav>

On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 12:46 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 16:57 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Unfortunately, based on the quick list I gathered below, there is a 
> >> competitive advantage to be gained by ignoring the spec as it currently 
> >> stands.
> > [...]
> > 
> > Is this feedback on the Internet Draft-to-be?
> >   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/cts/
> 
> I believe so.  That document suggests that "text/plain" is 
> authoritative.

Oops; then the document is unclear; it's meant to just
say "please review the HTML 5 spec, since it seems to
overlap the HTTP spec in scope; here's a copy,
quoted for your convenience."

The Internet Draft I'm working on isn't intended to specify
anything, but only invite review of the HTML 5 spec.

>   That does not appear to be the behavior of current 
> browsers, and as much as I would like them to, I have my doubts that 
> browsers will change their sniffing of feeds to conform to this standard 
> as there are a large number of pre-existing feeds for which "better" 
> results can be obtained by ignoring this standard.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 16:55:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:04 GMT