- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:40:30 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > So while it may be valuable to have a way to say "this is really the > > content type, please don't sniff", your example does not make a very > > strong case for it, since browsers are in their rights to do custom > > rendering of any XML content type based on the namespaces used in the > > contents. > > If I changed my content type to text/plain, would that change your > answer? I would gladly change my Content-type to text/plain if only I > could get browsers to respect that. Gladly. But they don't. For what it's worth, I strongly agree with you that (for security reasons if nothing else!) you should never have text/plain documents that only use non-<control> characters sniffed and treated like HTML, RSS, or Atom. Those documents should be treated as text/plain. At the moment, the spec backs that up. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 19:40:40 UTC