Re: LINK TYPE=override/type

Benjamin Franz (snowhare@netimages.com)
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:21:32 -0800 (PST)


Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:21:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <199801231938.MAA00223@underworld.bigpic.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980123115359.8436B-100000@ns.viet.net>
Subject: Re: LINK TYPE=override/type

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Neil St.Laurent wrote:

> > I repeat: MISMATCHED 'TYPE' AND 'CONTENT-TYPE' IS AN ERROR.  There is no
> > question of 'priority' here. The situation should never arise in the first
> > place..
> 
> And since text/css is not a valid MIME type (brought up from before, 
> I'm going on that) there is no possibility that a correct server can 
> actually return a content type of text/css and thus no browser can 
> actually ever link to a cascading style sheet.

[snip]

You are starting to engage in logic-chopping.

The relevant line from the HTTP/1.1 IETF draft is:

"Use of non-registered media types is discouraged."

This doesn't mean you can't use them. It means that using a type without
registering it with the IANA is _discouraged_ (although widely done in
practice). All registration does is provide namespace collision prevention
and reference for any given type. The paperwork overhead (even under the
new streamlined procedure its pretty bad) for registering types has simply
resulted in the registry going nearly unused in practice with people
instead trusting to blind luck to prevent collisions. 

Is 'text/css' an Internet media type?      Yes.
Is 'text/css' a registered MIME type?      No.
Is the difference significant in practice? No.

I think this thread has left the realm of meaningful discussion and
moved into the realm of argument just to be arguing.

-- 
Benjamin Franz