- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:21:26 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- CC: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > > Dean Edridge wrote: >> >> As soon as the document is given the media type "text/html" it becomes >> a HTML document, simple as that. > > Unless, of course, said document happens to contain the the following > bytes in the first 512 octets: > > 0x3C 0x72 0x73 0x73 > > I continue to believe that the specification should define a canonical > media type of "application/html" for the SGML inspired serialization of > HTML5 and then proceed to define appropriate content sniffing rules for > "text/html". > > Furthermore "application/html" should join "text/plain" and > "application/xhtml+xml" as content types that are *never* sniffed. I don't understand why this is likely to work better than defining the content-type header to be authoritative has been in the case of text/html. In general, the people who would correctly make such a distinction are not the ones whos content relies on sniffing to work as expected. I get the feeling I may be missing some subtlety in your point though. (FWIW, on the wider subject, I suscribe to the view that the spec should not suggest that anything sent as text/html can be considered XHTML; this is contrary to the way such content is processed by UAs and has no obvious benefits to authors yet increases the possibility of misunderstanding). -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 14:21:37 UTC