- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:04:58 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thanks the below is very helpful. Adam On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: >>>> 2) specify the algorithm to use if sniffing is done by referring to >>>> draft-abarth-mime-sniff directly. >>> >>> I don't think that has any place in the HTTP spec, especially as even >>> the revised version continues to use prescriptive language that >>> supercedes key parts of the HTTP protocol. >> >> I'd like to incorporate your feedback into the draft, but the above is >> too vague for me to act upon. Are there specific statements you'd >> like me to revise? > > Here they are; > > "The /sniffed type/ of a resource MUST be found as follows:" > > to; > > "The /sniffed type/ of a resource is found as follows:" > > This should be removed; > > "File extensions MUST NOT be used for determining resource types for > resources fetched over HTTP." > > As it's clear from the algorithm that file extensions are not > referenced, and it's HTTP's job to say what meaning is or isn't given > to them (which, of course, is none). > > Also, this introductory claim should be removed; > > "However, if the user agent does emply[sic] a > content sniffing algorithm, it is imperative that the algorithm in > this document be followed exactly" > > It should suffice that the draft explains the drawbacks of not > following the algorithm because a) the algorithm is still evolving > (e.g. text/plain), b) if an implementor has a good reason to implement > a different algorithm, they will, and c) the document should describe > the algorithm, and any conformance requirements about its use should > be left to the referrer (e.g. if the HTTP spec refers to it). > > Just for completeness' sake (removing the MUSTs), this; > > "the user agent MUST stop this > algorithm, and assume that the /sniffed type/ of the resource is > "text/html"." > > could be changed to "the algorithm stops and the /sniffed type/ of the > resource representation is "text/html" > > Separately, as an editorial comment, as listed directly above, I'd > like to see a big s/resource/resource representation/g (or just > s/resource/representation/g as the resource is what is identified by > the URI, not the bag-o-bits returned in an HTTP response. I have some > other editorial comments too, but those will have to wait until I have > time to write them down. > > Mark. >
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:05:56 UTC