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

Re: several messages about content sniffing in HTML

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:45:18 +0100
Message-ID: <47C8369E.1010006@gmx.de>
To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
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>

James Graham wrote:
> 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...

That's true.

What I wanted to point out is that it is *not* necessary for HTML5 to 
pick one specific behavior, and for FF3 to change what it does right now.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 16:45:36 UTC

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