- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:48:53 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > It's currently part of the HTML 5 work because it's in the > text that we adopted for review on 9 May and we haven't taken it out. > http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/46423D1F.5060500@w3.org;list=public-html Understood. > According to my understanding of Web Architecture, it's quite > a wart on the HTML spec; it belongs elsewhere. Yes. Like many other things, it IMHO belongs into a documented target solely to developers of user agents, which should be a *separate* document. > But the principle of Well-defined Behavior argues for including it. > http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/Overview.html#well-defined-behavior > > I find that principle unappealing, but I'm somewhat persuaded > that it's a necessary evil, or at least that it's cost-effective. As far as I can tell, the current spec tries to address content mislabeled as "text/plain" (optionally with "charset=iso-8859-1"). (ignoring the feed sniffing for a moment) It would be really nice if there'd be a simple way *for us* to get a feeling how big of a problem this is in practice. So I'd really like to have a browser that allows me to opt-out of sniffing, or that minimally informs me about these kinds of problems. If lots of content on the web that claims to be "text/plain" indeed isn't, then that's indeed a problem. But none that HTML5 should address, because it affects all HTTP based consumers of these resources, not just HTML user agents. > And of course, I consider the current content-type handling in > the browsers a bug and I'd like to see it fixed. But it does > seem like a browser that does so would lose market share > (see also "Support Existing Content"), so I'm not holding my breath. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 15:49:04 UTC