W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: "Content-Type Processing Model" draft 9 Jan (ISSUE-24 contentTypeOverride-24)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:12:49 -0600
To: www-tag@w3.org
Cc: public-w3c-ietf@w3.org
Message-Id: <1235502769.7466.5755.camel@pav.lan>
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 12:10 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Some news re ISSUE-24 contentTypeOverride-24...
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/24
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-abarth-mime-sniff/

> Abstract
> 
>    Many Web servers supply incorrect Content-Type headers with their
>    HTTP responses.  In order to be compatible with these Web servers,
>    Web browsers must consider the content of HTTP responses as well as
>    the Content-Type header when determining the effective mime type of
>    the response.  This document describes an algorithm for determining
>    the effective mime type of HTTP responses that balances security and
>    compatibility considerations.


I don't see anything in the Barth/Hickson draft that
addresses or even acknowledges the feedback from when
I put a similar draft together:


[[
On Aug 17, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

>       * Convince Web publishers to fix incorrectly labelled Web  
> content
>         and label it correctly in the future.
>       * Update the HTTP specification to match widely deployed
>         conventions captured in the HTML 5 draft.
>
> While the second option is unappealing, the first option seems
> infeasible.

It isn't infeasible. ...

HTTP should not be changed to support broken and error-prone browsers.
...

The Web needs to be able to support safety-critical information
systems ...
]]
 -- Roy Fielding 17 Aug 2007 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Aug/0034.html


Hmm... perhaps this part acknowledges the feedback:

"Note: The above algorithm is a willful violation of the HTTP
   specification.  [RFC2616]"

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 19:13:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:12 GMT