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

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

From: Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:02:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH4e3M5yCey0xOWtzjN=AFO15vzuj3+QQEH4Wn3GDvuMtBV6vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, whatwg List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:
>> But if everyone vows to just wait for 512 bytes (or EOF), then that's
>> fine with me.
> I don't think we should require tools to wait for 512 bytes. This is an
> area where if we have the requirement, some user agents are just going to
> have a timeout anyway and ignore the spec; we gain nothing by making it
> non-conforming to have a timeout.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm curious what other
implementers have to say on the issue.

>> > What are the use cases for ‘Sniffing archives specifically’?
>> No idea. I only included it for completeness.
> Please don't spec things for completeness without use cases. :-)

In that case, I need to know which you think you might want for HTML
and which you know you won't. (I don't know of any other specs reliant
on mimesniff.)

Gordon P. Hemsley
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:15:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:17 UTC