- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:35:35 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 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 I said: "do not care whether it requires or allows". That's different from not caring at all. > 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. On the other hand it's also important that the spec doesn't disallow something that may be the cleaner approach. > 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. The spec doesn't update itself, we do. And we do that by discussing the current contents, looking at alternatives, and then making decisions. The thing I proposed was that the spec *allows* UAs to follow the HTTP Content-Type (similarly as the content sniffing internet draft already does). Do you have an opinion related to that proposal? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 14:42:54 UTC