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

Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter

From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:09:22 -0400
Message-Id: <p06240887c492aa17f24f@[10.0.1.8]>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

At 15:43  +0200 3/07/08, Julian Reschke wrote:
>Jamie Lokier wrote:
>>Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>Many more clients to content sniffing, and the HTML5 draft 
>>>suggests it's  the right thing to do...
>>
>>So this whole question can be rephrased thus:
>>
>>    Are there significant numbers of servers out there which are
>>    serving content intended to be rendered as HTML (or other) with
>>    Content-Type: text/plain?
>
>I fear so, because of Apache httpd's support for defaulting the 
>content type (and the default being text/plain).
>
>See <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13986>.
>
>>...
>>Also, it might it be invoked by servers which report *no* Content-Type?
>>...
>
>Well, that's totally ok. Servers that do not know the Content-Type 
>of a resource should not guess, which in turn allows the recipient 
>to sniff.

but, as far as I can tell, there is no "unknown" content-type, is there?


-- 
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 16:11:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:19 GMT