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

Re: [whatwg] [mimesniff] The X-Content-Type-Options header

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:27:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia8mAzj6uiLHekua6meBPPHdJ9813M+kxKtPsCPY92H4mQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: whatwg List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley@gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-11-17 19:17, Adam Barth wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I would prefer if the spec described what implementations actually do
>> rather than your opinion about what they should do.  To answer your
>> specific questions:
>> ...
>
> That works well if something is widely supported already. It works less well
> if you have one initial and one incomplete implementation only.

Which implementation is initial and which is incomplete?  AFAIK, both
IE and Chromium consider their implementation of this feature done.

>> 1) Don't bother dropping the "X-".  Everyone who implements this
>> feature uses the X- and dropping it is just going to cause unnecessary
>> interoperability problems.
>
> There's no *need* to drop it, but if research on this topic leads to the
> conclusion that the functionality is needed, but the current X- prototype
> isn't sufficient anyway it might be worth considering.

Currently, I don't see a use case for dropping the X- prefix.  Perhaps
there's one I don't understand?

Adam
Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 20:44:47 GMT

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