- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:36:54 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, ryan <ryan@theryanking.com>, Hugh Winkler <hughw@wellstorm.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: >> Things aren't specified well enough until I can write an HTTP UA that >> can work in the real world (which, as someone dealing with feeds, I >> can tell you need without question support for content-type sniffing) >> from reading specifications without having to reverse-engineer anything. >> ... > > Doesn't seem to apply to this case. > > A duplicate Content-Type header response indicates that the response is > invalid. > > Apparently, most browsers accept the response anyway, some of which > picking the first value, others the second. Both behaviors seem to be > acceptable to users. > > So there's nothing you *need* to reverse engineer in this case. > But the fact that you need to examine browsers to determine that the behavior you pick isn't important is itself reverse engineering... -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 16:38:02 UTC