W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:40:13 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0906051240i2c10e430ib1c5819369d55cd5@mail.gmail.com>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:10 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
>> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> Server misrepresentation of Content-Type will cease, once browsers stop
>>> misrepresenting the content type.  Until web authors and administrators
>>> (including mass vhosters) become aware that they have misrepresented the
>>> data they are serving, they will continue to generate the 3% (IIRC) of
>>> mislabeled content.
>> This is unlikely to ever occur given the market dynamics of browsers.
> Which is what makes the entire discussion so entirely laughable.
> I concur with Roy and Julian, leave Content-Type null with an undefined
> content type.  while user agents persist in nonsense (such as decoding
> UTF-7 when presented an explicit charset), this is out of our server-side
> and authors' hands, and no spec is going to correct their misbehavior or
> unsafe practices.
> For some tiny minority who care, the very absence of Content-Type conveys
> new, useful metadata that should not break 2616 definitions.

I don't share your pessimistic view, but that resolution is workable
from my perspective.

Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 19:41:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:40 UTC