- From: Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils-dagsson-moskopp@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:55:03 +0200
Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen at peda.net> schrieb am Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:03:27 +0300: >[?] > > Basically, this sounds like all the issues of BOM for all binary > files. > > And why do we need this? Because web servers are not behaving > correctly and are sending incorrect Content-Type headers? What makes > you believe that BINID will not be incorrectly used? > > (If you really believe that you can force content authors to provide > correct BINIDs, why you cannot force content authors to provide > correct Content-Types? Hopefully the goal is not to sniff if BINIDs > seems okay and ignore "clearly incorrect" ones in the future...) This. BINID may be a well-intended idea, but would be an essentially useless additional layer of abstraction that provides no more safeguards against misuse than the Content-Type header. The latter also required no changes to current binary file handling ? which for BINID would need to be universally updated in every conceivable device that could ever get a BINID file. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100913/84be7e0a/attachment-0001.pgp>
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 06:55:03 UTC