W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2012

Re: [whatwg] [mimesniff] Review requested on MIME Sniffing Standard

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:06:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAuexuPesG6CDyGEat06noieEt0JfHbUVw7Z2Cn_c4stBkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley@gmail.com>
Cc: whatwg List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Thanks for pursuing this.

Resending feedback previously written at
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=808593#c10 :

I think the bits ‘type is equal to "font" or’ and ‘type is equal to
"archive" or’ are highly questionable. The most popular font types are
in the process of getting application/ types and the most popular
archives already have application/ types.

I suspect the ‘a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as determined
by the user agent.’ is unnecessary. The HTML spec has the same
provision for the <meta> prescan. Firefox didn’t implement it, a
couple of people complained, then fixed their code, and the sky didn’t
fall.

What are the use cases for ‘Sniffing archives specifically’? It
appears that it sniffs ODF-style files
(http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/os/OpenDocument-v1.2-os-part3.html#__RefHeading__752809_826425813
; EPUB, ODF, InDesign, etc.) and Open Packaging Conventions-based
files (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Packaging_Conventions ;
OOXML, XPS, etc.) files as zip archives. Is that intended and a
desirable outcome in the light of use cases? (In general, it would be
easier to review if the spec makes sense if the use cases and callers
of various sniffing functions were known.)

Otherwise, looks good to me.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 19:48:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:11 GMT