- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:42:32 -0700
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
I suspect that the problem is partly economic. Faces with bug reports etc. saying "it doesn't work right" we can either explain endlessly what people have got wrong...or we can sharply reduce the number of such calls (which cost money) by sniffing. Don't get me wrong, I don't like sniffing. But I don't think a stroke of Ian's pen will make it go away. (It's also odd to have a spec. which bars the user agent from 'going the extra mile'. Specs classically say all the things you must do to be conformant, and generally can't stop you from doing more.) At 23:31 -0500 6/16/09, Shane McCarron wrote: >This is my favorite comment in this thread, bar none! Why, oh why >are you all trying so hard to continue to support broken behavior >instead of slapping down the people who insist on doing it wrong? >If the user agents (go Firefox!) just refused to sniff, then no one >would send nonsense content. 'cause it wouldn't work. >Robert O'Callahan wrote: >>I should also point out that so far we have had approximately zero >>complaints from authors about the fact that Firefox doesn't sniff. >> >>Rob -- Dave Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime 408 974 3162
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 04:44:13 UTC