- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:33:53 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > 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. Yes, I understand that. > So it's only ignored if @type is a type that is supported via a plug-in. Yes. >> 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. Thanks for the feedback. This is helpful. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:34:40 UTC