- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:41:06 +0100
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Adam Barth wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> Adam Barth wrote: >>> Unfortunately, a browser's content sniffing algorithm is a subtle >>> beast. I would not recommend changing the algorithm because of >>> aesthetics. Instead, I recommend changing the algorithm either (1) to >>> improve security, (2) to improve compatibility with web content, or >>> (3) to improve interoperability with other browsers. >>> ... >> (2) and (3) seem to be arguments in favor of handling the UTF-8 BOM. > > Maybe, but maybe not. For (2), we should do a careful measurement > instead of relying on this one anecdote. For (3), there's no way to > chase IE's tail here without giving up on (1). Instead, I've But IE is consistent with Safari and Opera here, isn't it? > recommended in the past (and continue to recommend) that other > browsers use Firefox's HTML signature (with a handful of changes that > measurability improve compatibility). > ... I do agree that minimizing sniffing is a good thing when the server indicates a media type. However, in this case, the server did not do that, and ignoring a UTF-8-BOM appears to be the wrong thing to do in this case. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 15:41:48 UTC