Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Barry Leiba <> wrote:
> I'd be in favour of something like, "The use of different sniffing
> algorithms in different implementations creates [these sorts of
> problems].  Because of that, settling on common sniffing mechanisms is
> important.  To that end, implementations that sniff SHOULD
> [...etc...]."  The explanation of why it's important may sway some
> implementors, and making it a SHOULD recognizes that some will go
> their own way in any case.

This sounds reasonable to me.


Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 01:36:08 UTC