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

Re: http content type authoritative for object data?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:34:08 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20091210153408353057.d2e4e606@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tab Atkins Jr., Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:12:38 -0600:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> So if what the spec requires isn't your top consideration you probably
>> shouldn't care whether it requires or just allows ignoring the HTTP
>> content-type.
> 
> Please don't be ridiculous.  The meaning of that statement is that the
> spec is less important than reality when making decisions.  That
> doesn't imply that he or any other browser developer 'doesn't care'
> what the spec says.  It's quite the opposite in fact; it's in
> everyone's best interests that the spec declare something that matches
> reality, so that corner cases aren't different between impls and they
> don't have to waste QA time and money on checking if the way other
> browsers do things is better.
> 
> The willingness to ignore the spec when it's incorrect is not a
> statement that the spec is worthless, as long as the spec is willing
> to update itself.

"Willingness to ignore the spec" could mean "willingness to let the 
HTTP content-type have priority over the <object>'s @type attribute, 
despite what HTML 5 says". Julian was simply asking if the spec was 
willing to update itself in this regard, so that it would not be 
necessary to break HTML 5.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 14:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:55 UTC