- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:40:13 -0700
- 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. Thanks, Adam
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 19:41:06 UTC