W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Revisiting Authoritative Metadata

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:03:41 -0700
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20130225180341.a310ee8a4b6036fefccc71c3@bisonsystems.net>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Actually, <img> always sniffs and does not do so based on the file
> extension (that would be so wrong), but rather the file signature
> which every image format includes, except for SVG, which is hardcoded
> to look at the Content-Type header instead...

Which is all fine and dandy if you have the context of the <img> tag,
i.e. you're coding a browser.  But, what about other components like
caches?  How would they even know to use a binary sniffer, without
the foreknowledge provided by the <img> tag?  Much better for the
sender to explicitly indicate the payload's codec.

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 01:04:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:19 UTC