- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:24:12 +0000
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Art, On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > Marcos, > > On Dec 3, 2008, at 5:03 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: > >> A widget user agent would be expected to support the above types. All >> other types are optional. All proprietary types, apart from ico, are >> optional. > > What - if anything - will be prescribed (normative) here for the various > conformance classes? > The spec will contain a table of file extensions, corresponding MIME types, and magic numbers (unique byte sequences for sniffing). User Agents would be expected to use table to derive the MIME type interoperably. > I scanned the new Section 6.1 and didn't notice any testable assertions: > > <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#files> > A testable assertion would be to check that, for instance, a .html file is being process as text/html and not as application/xhtml+xml. A bunch of tests could be developed where files have no extensions and a widget user agent is expected to correctly process each file. Another testable assertion would be to make sure that either sniffing or file extension checking is done first. >From reading [1], seems that sniffing is performed by browsers first. If sniffing cannot determine the type, file extension is used as a fallback. So, another testable assertion would be to create a "index.jpg" file (with HTML content) and make sure it does actually get rendered as text/html. Or create a image.html with png data and make sure that it does get rendered as image/png. And so on... Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 14:25:01 UTC