- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:55:11 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 15.03.2011 16:13, Sam Ruby wrote: > ... > *** Decision of the Working Group *** > > Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the Change Proposal to > change the note after "algorithm for extracting an encoding from > a Content-Type" to not mention HTTP. Of the Change Proposals > before us, this one has drawn the weaker objections. > ... Anne's proposal was (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jan/0337.html>): > Summary: Change the note after "algorithm for extracting an encoding from > a Content-Type" to not mention HTTP as HTTP is not affected by this > algorithm. > > Rationale: "algorithm for extracting an encoding from a Content-Type" is > only used to examine the contents of a document and therefore does not > affect HTTP. Claiming it a willful violation of HTTP is misleading. > > Details: Instead of saying this is a willful violation of HTTP say this is > a distinct algorithm from HTTP Content-Type processing for usage outside > of HTTP. I'm ok with this text. However, the paragraphs we discuss still appear under "2.7.3 Determining the type of a resource", which starts with discussing determining the content-type, and that *does* include HTTP. For clarify it would be good if the text under discussion would move to a separate subsection so that it is clear it's totally separate from the media type detection in 2.7.3. Such as "2.7.4 Extracting encoding from a <meta> tag". Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 12:55:49 UTC