- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:53:14 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11/10/09 8:33 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > This should be a bit more exact as to how the mediaType is returned. I > would prefer ASCII-lowercase. Returning "application/octet-stream" > rather than null also seems better if the type is not known. That way > you do not have to type check. Other parts of the platform also handle > "application/octet-stream" as unknown. That's not necessarily true. Most simply, loading a url in a browser doesn't treat application/octet-stream the same way it treats a missing Content-Type header. > Also, maybe we should just call this type? File.type seems unambiguous > enough. It seems that many people think of "JPG" or "PNG" or "HTML" etc as the "file type". Witness all the dialog in various software that talk about "PNG files" and such. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 16:54:22 UTC