Re: HTML interpreter vs. HTML user agent

On Thu, 28 May 2009 16:20:52 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> I believe that if you were to expand the scope to include feed readers  
> and media players and all other user agents, and get representatives of  
> such to actually participate in the discussion, the set of rules you  
> would end up will look markedly different than the ones captured in the  
> current specification.

I think it would be good to include them then, if that's possible.


>> When sniffing was discussed a while ago I remember that
>> technorati.com and a feed library gsnedders was working on made their
>> code much stricter. They're not browsers.
>
> And I can identify a few products and libraries that have become more  
> liberal over time.

My point was that the section is not just for browsers and that not just browsers are looking at it.


> Permit me to turn that around... can we precisely identify in which  
> contexts the "#content-type-sniffing:-feed-or-html" section is meant to  
> apply?

Doesn't HTML5 do that?


> If those set of rules are meant to only apply to browsers, and appear in  
> a document labeled as a browser behavior specification, then all  
> concerns go away.  If those set of rules are meant to apply to  
> everybody, then the discussion needs to move to the IETF, and the  
> content in that section will likely look markedly different once that  
> process is complete.

Feed processors deal with processing HTML content as well. Why is it fine to do that part at the W3C, but not the content sniffing part? Both equally apply to everybody. Why would it be fine to do the sniffing part at the W3C if scoped to browsers?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 14:33:09 UTC