- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:58:58 +0100
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:53:14 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > 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. True, can you ever get this situation when reading a file from disk? >> 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. Sure, but there's also <style>.type, <script>.type, <link>.type, etc. I don't see a reason to be inconsistent with that. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 16:59:40 UTC