- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:56:49 +0100
- To: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
David Morris wrote: > >I don't mind making this requirement non-normative (since as you say it's > >implicit), but I do think we should explicitly state that file extensions > >don't and mustn't have an effect, since it is so common to use them for > >this exact purpose in clients. > > I find it absurd to disallow use of file extensions given that on most > OSes, there is no other mechanism to annotate content type. And they are > a common way web servers choose content/type values. Does the sniffing document not apply to browsers looking at content on a local disk (therefore with no Content-Type), or does this mean it recommends sniffing the content without looking at the filename on the local disk? I'm pretty sure Firefox and the like look at the file extension when looking at content found on local disk. But surely it does sniffing at well, on local disk files? Does the sniffing document not apply at all in that case, or is there a different sniffing algorithm used which remains undocumented? -- Jamie
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 16:57:24 UTC