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
me@gphemsley.org
http://gphemsley.org/http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:15:07 GMT

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