W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2008

Re: several messages about content sniffing in HTML

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:36:54 +0000
Message-ID: <47C834A6.2080807@cam.ac.uk>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:53 UTC