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

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:32:23 +0000 (UTC)
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0906140128490.16244@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> that code shows Chrome using the file extension to look up a content 
> type from the windows registry, so it's clearly showing Chrome using the 
> file extension to determine content type.  The fact that the DB of 
> extension to type is provided by the OS, doesn't alter the fact that 
> Chrome is using it.

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> OK..This does raise the question of what does a server do.
> I don't know of any servers (in my relatively limited knowledge of 
> servers) that doesn't just use the file extension to choose content type 
> when serving. If the served type is supposed to be the authoritative 
> reference, you get problems when a server has a smaller database of 
> extension-to-type than the client.

I believe that everything you're writing above is consistent with what 
Adam's draft says, namely:

# For resources fetched from the file system, user agents should use
# platform-specific conventions, e.g. operating system file extension/
# type mappings.
# File extensions MUST NOT be used for determining resource types for
# resources fetched over HTTP.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 01:32:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:49 UTC