- From: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:32:01 -0700
- To: Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
- CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, public-webappsec@w3.org
On 7/23/12 4:09 PM, Devdatta Akhawe wrote: > I agree with Mike and like #2 more. [...] > > Note that Mike's suggestion allows for application/foobar, where > application/foobar is not a mime type that the browser knows what to > do with (and the browser could say that in the console). But it will > fail loudly for just application (e.g., if developer mistakenly put a > space and typed out application / foobar ) In the common case they're both about the same: most of the time pages will have one plugin and "application/ foobar" will fail to load it. If developers are testing their site they'll notice under option #1, and if they aren't testing then failing more with option #2 is unlikely to help much. Option 1 had the benefit of allowing for future expansion, although I can't imagine what that would be at this time. -Dan
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 23:32:44 UTC