- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:27:43 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 12/8/09 8:32 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 4. Otherwise, if the resource type is unknown, and the resource has > associated Content-Type metadata, then let the resource type be the type > specified in the resource's Content-Type metadata." .... > This suggests that when @type is present, the associated content type > information (for instance HTTP Content-Type) is ignored The "associated Content-Type metadata" bit means the HTTP Content-Type. So it's only ignored if @type is a type that is supported via a plug-in. > which seems to be both an incompatible change, and violate the "authoritative metadata > principle". Sadly required to not break existing content. :( I don't think anyone's particularly happy about it; if you have a better approach that still doesn't break existing content I'd love to know what it is. > Was this discussed somewhere? Yes; looks like on the whatwg mailing list. See http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-August/022501.html as a starting point, I think, complete with the gory bug references, etc. There are both earlier and later messages in that thread, but I think that one sums up the Gecko implementation experience with <object>. > It it *implemented* this way? In Gecko, yes. See the discussion above. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:28:28 UTC