- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:45:18 +0100
- To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, ryan <ryan@theryanking.com>, Hugh Winkler <hughw@wellstorm.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
James Graham wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Things aren't specified well enough until I can write an HTTP UA that >>> can work in the real world (which, as someone dealing with feeds, I >>> can tell you need without question support for content-type sniffing) >>> from reading specifications without having to reverse-engineer anything. >>> ... >> >> Doesn't seem to apply to this case. >> >> A duplicate Content-Type header response indicates that the response >> is invalid. >> >> Apparently, most browsers accept the response anyway, some of which >> picking the first value, others the second. Both behaviors seem to be >> acceptable to users. > > > > So there's nothing you *need* to reverse engineer in this case. > > > > But the fact that you need to examine browsers to determine that the > behavior you pick isn't important is itself reverse engineering... That's true. What I wanted to point out is that it is *not* necessary for HTML5 to pick one specific behavior, and for FF3 to change what it does right now. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 16:45:36 UTC