- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:07:58 +0200
At 10:02 +0200 UTC, on 2007-05-23, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2007 04:05:26 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st at isoc.nl> wrote: >> [...] At 10:44 +0200 UTC, on 2007-05-22, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >>> For compatibility with the web it seems important to simply ignore >>> Content-Type in all modes. >> >> I'm confused about "in all modes" in this context. I thouht the idea was >> to do away with modes altogether? > > Standards and quirks mode I meant. But I thought the idea was that there is to be one HTML, with such well-defined error handling for UAs that there will be no more modes except The One Mode. > [...] Because we implemented > something that did completely respect it in standards mode we break > sites... Go figure. Well, that's web publishers breaking their own sites. But I understand what you mean, in that a group of end users will blame the UA. Still, I'm not sure what the current situation is. An old, simple test case of mine, at <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/contenttype/>, shows that now in fact more UAs respect that Content-Type header's MIME type than when I originally put it up. (WebKit now does respect that Content-Type.) That gives me the impression that most UAs that are not IE do respect the Content-Type's mime type, and makes me wonder what the problem really is. Maybe that test case doesn't reflect the reality that some people here are talking about? [...Content-Type in general...] > This was about loading style sheet resources. User agents know when > they're doing that. The same goes for loading image resources (from <img> > or background-image). Hm... right. OK, it might indeed be that when CSS is linked to through the link element, or @import, it may be safe to ignore the Content-Type header's MIME type. Ignoring the HTTP status would seem to be another thing though. I mean, surely something like a 301 or 307 would have to be respected. But Ian seems to be talking about Content-Type in general, not just for Style Sheets. So I'm trying to understand exactly what is being proposed here. To do away with Content-Type exactly where? To ignore Content-Type entirely (in specific situations), or to ignore it only when its value makes no sense, and if so, what's the definition of "sense"? -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 10:07:58 UTC