W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: http content type authoritative for object data?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:34:08 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20091210153408353057.d2e4e606@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tab Atkins Jr., Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:12:38 -0600:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> So if what the spec requires isn't your top consideration you probably
>> shouldn't care whether it requires or just allows ignoring the HTTP
>> content-type.
> Please don't be ridiculous.  The meaning of that statement is that the
> spec is less important than reality when making decisions.  That
> doesn't imply that he or any other browser developer 'doesn't care'
> what the spec says.  It's quite the opposite in fact; it's in
> everyone's best interests that the spec declare something that matches
> reality, so that corner cases aren't different between impls and they
> don't have to waste QA time and money on checking if the way other
> browsers do things is better.
> The willingness to ignore the spec when it's incorrect is not a
> statement that the spec is worthless, as long as the spec is willing
> to update itself.

"Willingness to ignore the spec" could mean "willingness to let the 
HTTP content-type have priority over the <object>'s @type attribute, 
despite what HTML 5 says". Julian was simply asking if the spec was 
willing to update itself in this regard, so that it would not be 
necessary to break HTML 5.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 14:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC