- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:15:50 +0200
- To: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
(This is part of my detailed review of Offline Web applications.) The spec says: Manifests must be served using the text/cache-manifest MIME type. What is the advantage of using text/cache-manifest over text/plain? I think using text/cache-manifest has the following problems: * Servers don't have a file extension that maps to text/cache-manifest, so manifests are likely to end up being mislabeled as text/plain or text/html, which in turn makes browsers that ignore the Content-Type work with more content than browsers that honor it. (This is also why it would be a bad idea to introduce a new MIME type for XBL.) * If you try to view a manifest in a browser, then if it was text/cache-manifest existing browsers will promt the user to download the file instead of just viewing it directly. This is not a biggie but sucks for Web app developers and might make them to rather label manifests as text/plain. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 11:16:02 UTC