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

Re: http content type authoritative for object data?

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:11:39 -0800
Message-ID: <4E9D1999945D45AE95EF60DF243D9EB5@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, <public-html@w3.org>
What, step up to YouTube and tell them how full of it they are for 
using mindless junk like this?

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px" >
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vwI3tL2yc6k">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vwI3tL2yc6k"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"
width="425" height="344">
</object>

Good Luck and Best Regards,
Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>; <public-html@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: http content type authoritative for object data?


> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Julian Reschke 
>>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is lots of good data in the bugs I cited. And suggestions 
>>>>> for
>>>>> further reasearch.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone feels passionate about this I suggest they do the 
>>>>> remaining
>>>>> research as well as getting the know broken sites fixed. *That* 
>>>>> has a
>>>>> much
>>>>> greater chance of getting implementations to change than 
>>>>> anything any
>>>>> spec
>>>>> says.
>>>>
>>>> Step 1 is to *allow* a UA to treat the HTTP content-type as
>>>> authoritative.
>>>
>>> I disagree. As a browser developer, data based on research is much
>>> more likely to convince me that something will not break the web 
>>> than
>>> a spec forbidding, requiring, allowing or recommending any 
>>> particular
>>> behavior. That is step 1.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I still care what the spec says, for wholly different reasons. I 
> still
> want the spec to be a useful reference for people writing UAs, as 
> well
> as for people authoring content / writing tutorials for people
> authoring content.
>
> What I was more hoping for though was that someone on this list 
> would
> care enough about improving the web by making it possible for UAs to
> do what we all want them to do. I.e. doing the legwork to do the
> research and contacting the relevant sites.
>
> I'm still hoping to hear someone step up to do this.
>
> / Jonas
> 
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 06:12:25 UTC

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