Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing

On Jun 17, 2009, at 1:09 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Per the current rules that would give the same result as a bogus  
>> media type though. I.e. lack of Content-Type does not give you the  
>> right to start sniffing for <video> / <audio>.
> So it's also not possible to deliver <video>/<audio> content over  
> HTTP/0.9, or over other protocols that have no way to deliver a  
> Content-Type header (file:// comes to mind)?
> If that's the case, then it sounds like the rules are badly broken  
> and we should fix them.  If not, then presumably we have some rules  
> on how to treat <audio>/<video> in situations when no MIME type is  
> delivered via the network protocol, and should presumably be  
> applying those rules in all such cases, no?

It seems to me like it would make sense to treat the no MIME type case  
differently, since the server is giving the client a license to sniff  
per the HTTP protocol spec when it sends no Content-Type header. This  
doesn't have the same kinds of problems as sniffing out of text/plain.


Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 14:46:03 UTC