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

Re: XMLNS in Inkscape and other editors

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:41:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4B0AAD12.6070204@gmx.de>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:03 UTC