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

Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:42:34 +0200
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ttuno8tu64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:30:50 +0200, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote:
> One sub-point I'd like to make is that it's not wrong for the user
> agent to say nothing about what it accepts. It's also not wrong to
> list everything it accepts every time, according to HTTP. If a request
> for a CSS file retrieves a text/html document, well, sounds like the
> site is quite broken. This is not a user agent problem.

I think I interpret this rather different from you. That is, the user  
agent indicates which types it supports for a particular request. So if it  
says text/html when it fetches a style sheet it indicates it can process  
text/html as a style sheet for the current page. Or if it fetches an image  
that it can show text/html resources as images.


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.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 07:42:52 GMT

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