- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:25:45 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "www-talk@w3.org" <www-talk@w3.org>
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Breno de Medeiros wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Breno de Medeiros wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2. This technique may prevent legitimate uses of the spec by > > > > > developers who do not have the ability to set the appropriate > > > > > header. > > > > > > > > Many developers can control Content-Type headers using .htaccess > > > > files (and their ilk). > > > > > > And many others cannot. This is particularly irksome in outsourcing > > > situations where you have only partial control of the hosting > > > environment or depend on non-technical users to perform > > > administrative tasks. > > > > Note that if the spec says that UAs are to ignore the Content-Type > > header, this is a violation of the HTTP and MIME specifications. If > > this is intentional, then the HTTP or MIME specs should be changed. > > The spec is letting applications decide what to do. It is not mandating > anything. Well then what Adam is suggesting isn't controversial, and in fact it's already required (by HTTP/MIME). So adding a note to the site-meta spec reminding implementors of this doesn't seem like a bad idea. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 01:26:20 UTC