- From: Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:53:16 -0400
Nils, I don't hate the HTTP Content-Type header. In fact, I like it very much. But this proposal was intended to guide the user agent before they ever receive the HTTP Content-Type header. ;) Cheers, Gordon On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote: > "Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley at gmail.com> schrieb am Tue, 13 Jul 2010 > 02:31:19 -0400: > >> It should not be assumed that whatever resource included via <iframe> >> is going to be of type 'text/html' or another easily parsable type. >> Thus, it could be helpful for the author to give the user agent a >> hint as to what type of document it is requesting be displayed >> inline, and allow the user agent to choose not to display the >> contents of the <iframe> if it feels it cannot support it. > > Have you thought of using HTTP Content-Type headers and classic MIME > type handling to determine compatibility ? > >> [?] >> >> Now, I'm not a spec implementor by any means, but I am a web author >> and a web user, so I've been on both sides of this issue. And it >> doesn't appear that it would be too complicated to extend the >> existing support of @type. > > AFAIK, implementors could use HTTP Content-Type headers for the given > purpose. > >> Thoughts? > > Why do you hate HTTP Content-Type headers ? ;) > > > Cheers, > Nils > -- Gordon P. Hemsley me at gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ ? http://gphemsley.org/blog/ http://sasha.sourceforge.net/ ? http://www.yoursasha.com/
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 23:53:16 UTC