W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] Appcache feedback (various threads)

From: Patrick Mueller <pmuellr@muellerware.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:02:01 -0400
Message-ID: <i43fo9$7pg$1@dough.gmane.org>
On 8/12/10 6:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> XML would be much too complex for what is needed. We could possibly
>> remove the media type check and resort to using the "CACHE MANIFEST"
>> identifier (i.e. "sniffing"), but the HTTP gods will get angry.
> Yeah, that's pretty much the way it is.

Although I haven't personally had a problem dealing with the 
content-type requirement, I have heard from at least one other colleague 
who did; their server was harder to configure.

I had assumed the reason for having the specific text/cache-manifest 
content type was to force people to "opt-in" to support, instead of 
being able to just read a random URL and having it interpreted, perhaps 
maliciously, as a manifest.

If that's not a concern, then I'd like to understand the ramifications 
of getting the HTTP angry gods angry by ignoring the content-type.

Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 06:02:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:26 UTC