- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:39:59 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, e_lawrence@hotmail.com
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Dave Singer wrote: >> Next up: a server that always adds the "I mean it" attribute, even when >> it doesn't, and the subsequent invention of the "No, really, come on, >> you have to believe me, scout's honor, I really truly mean it" >> extension. > > This is exactly why this won't work. Sites will use this correctly, then > someone will set some default somewhere incorrectly, or copy and paste a > correct site somehow, or misunderstand a tutorial or something, and deploy > it without testing in IE8. And it will work fine in all the browsers > ... Well, only if the other UAs do not adopt the proposal. I'm not saying they should (yet), but why wouldn't it work if all UAs did the same thing here? > except IE8, an then IE8 will be patched to make this attribute trigger a > slightly different (and smaller) set of content-sniffing instead... except > that the set won't be quite what was intended, because there will be some > bug, and then there will be sites that DO test with this patched IE8, but > end up relying on this slightly different content sniffing... > > ...and ten years from now we'll have four different content sniffing modes > with four different ways of triggering it and the next generation will > look back at 2008 and wonder what we were thinking. > > > The way out of this mess is containment. We define a strict set of > Content-Type sniffing rules that are required to render the Web, and we > get the browsers to converge on only sniffing for those. > ... So you can get the browser vendors to converge on a precise set of sniffing rules, but you can't get them to agree on an opt-out? Sounds inconsistent to me. BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 5 July 2008 07:40:43 UTC