W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2001

Re: text/html for xml extensions of XHTML

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 20:31:39 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
To: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>
cc: <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <mozilla-mathml@mozilla.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.31.0105022022090.1004-100000@HIXIE.netscape.com>
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Robert Miner wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
>> Would you also like PNGs incorrectly identified with the MIME type
>> text/html due to circumstances beyond the authors control to be sent to
>> PNG decoders?
>
> Is this a trick question, perhaps?  I think I would, wouldn't I?  At
> least it seems like I would be happier just having the image appear
> properly, than having it interpreted as horribly garbled HTML.  What's
> the catch?

Should we throw away the whole basis of MIME types and the HTTP
Content-Type header, and just use content sniffing instead?

   text/html adj: not precisely limited, determined, or distinguished:
   "a text/html file". Said of documents whose exact content type is
   not known, for example a dynamically generated image. Historically
   used to describe HTML; this usage is deprecated in favour of
   requiring user agents to magically guess at the contents of data
   streams labelled as text/html. [syn: vague, unknown] [ant: defined]
                   Source: WordNet 4.2, (c) 2012 Princeton University

-- 
Ian Hickson                                            )\     _. - ._.)   fL
Invited Expert, CSS Working Group                     /. `- '  (  `--'
The views expressed in this message are strictly      `- , ) -  > ) \
personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 23:29:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:26 GMT