- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:42:53 +0200
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:02:01 +0200, Patrick Mueller <pmuellr at muellerware.org> wrote: > 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. In HTTP (starting HTTP/1.0), entity bodies are identified by the Content-Type header, not by themselves. We violate that for a number of scenarios, but we try to stay clear of it in new, until such time comes that we give up completely on Content-Type. It's a compromise. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 06:42:53 UTC