- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:55:08 -0400
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 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. For the record, I agree with the points made by Roy, and don't believe normative text of any kind is appropriate here at this point in time. I could live with something like this in HTTPbis; "Some HTTP clients intentionally ignore the authoritative media type of some messages and instead 'sniff' the representation to determine the effective type. For Web browsers in particular, work is ongoing to document a sniffing algorithm[non-normative ref] that reflects common practice amoung popular implementations." Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 14:55:57 UTC