- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:16:29 -0700
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Jamie Lokier<jamie@shareable.org> wrote: > 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 haven't investigated this question in detail, but I suspect the answer will vary by browser. There is very little interoperability between browsers when interacting with the file system. > 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? Do you have evidence for this belief? It should be fairly easy to determine by looking at the source code. > Does the sniffing document not apply at all in that case, or is there > a different sniffing algorithm used which remains undocumented? There is only one sniffing algorithm. The question is only whether its applied in this case. More precisely, the question is whether the "file" protocol handler assigns a media type using OS-specific functionality before handing the response off to the next layer, where content sniffing is performed on various media types (e.g., the empty media type). Adam
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 17:17:33 UTC