W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-28: http-mime-override - suggest closing on 2009-08-20

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:30:05 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0908150730w391442d6o734714a73917ea2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> Sam Ruby and Dan Connolly asked me to resend my proposed issue closures in
> individual emails, with clear subject lines, and Cc'd to the issue
> originator when possible. Apologies for the spam. If there are no
> objections, I will close this issue on 2009-08-20.
> ------------
> ISSUE-28: http-mime-override - Content type rules in HTML 5 overlaps with
> the HTTP specification?
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/28
>
> The HTML5 spec completely defers to Adam Barth's MIME sniffing draft. Thus,
> the HTML5 spec text at issue here no longer exist. This issue should be
> closed.
> Dan Connolly pointed out, in response to an earlier email, that breaking out
> part of the document does not make the technical issue go away. I agree.
> However, I believe that referencing an unstable external spec does not need
> to block Last Call, therefore I suggest we track this in some way other than
> the issue tracker. Dan, can you confirm whether you think this needs to be
> held open? What do others think?

This issue is about a possible conflict between the content sniffing
algorithm and the HTTP specification.  The consensus opinion in the
HTTP working group appears to be that these are not in conflict.  See,
for example, this message from the chair of the HTTPbis working group:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0473.html

It seems, then, that we can safely close this issue.  If referencing
an unstable external spec is an issue, we can raise that separately.

Adam
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 14:31:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT