- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:36:49 -0500
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, David John Burrowes wrote: > > > > I can understand wanting to do things right, in terms of using > > Content-Type for the file. I can also attest that it can be a royal > > pain to diagnose when this is set wrong. I wonder it it would make > > sense to have a recommended file extension for the manifest (e.g. > > "cachemanifest" so "myapp.cachemanifest"). (maybe "manifest" is a fine > > extension, as implied in the spec. It seems a bit generic of a name to > > me, though). This way, web server developers could add this into their > > default configurations. > > The spec's text/cache-manifest registration suggests "manifest". > That's far too generic for servers to default to mapping *.manifest to text/cache-manifest. For example, Windows uses *.manifest for SxS assembly manifests. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 15:36:49 UTC