W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2011

RE: ACTION-472: New Mime-web-info draft

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:24:57 -0500 (EST)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
cc: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1102011122150.2672@wnl.j3.bet>
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Wasn't there a proposed (or implemented) "I really mean the content-type
> header please don't sniff" HTTP header?

Yes: "MIME-Handling: Sniffing Opt-Out"

Discussion thread here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JulSep/0002.html

I mean it will always lead to "I really mean it" and "I really really mean 
it" (wash, rinse, repeat)

> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:50 AM
> To: Eric J. Bowman
> Cc: nathan@webr3.org; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Jonathan Rees; Larry Masinter; Noah Mendelsohn; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION-472: New Mime-web-info draft
>
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Eric J. Bowman wrote:
>
>> Nathan wrote:
>>>
>>> Aye, and I guess classing some URIs as "media types" based on the
>>> first x chars of the lexical form of the URI would not be a good idea
>>> (Opacity and all).
>>>
>>
>> It's a fine debate to have on rest-discuss, where we can talk about the
>> various philosophies of how self-descriptive messaging might function,
>> without limiting ourselves to the constraints imposed by HTTP.  The
>> HTTP WG would be the right forum to suggest, in the absence of a
>> Content-Type header, falling back to some other header which allows
>> URIs as tokens -- without having anything to do with media types.  Here,
>> though, we should treat decisions like the registry being targeted at
>> humans or not being URI-extensible (or existing at all), as having
>> already been made, IMO.
>
> The current fallback is sniffing, not another header. Adding a new header
> won't solve the issues outlined by Larry's document.
> That said, minting URIs to query a registry might be helpful.
>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 16:25:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:30 GMT