W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2011

[whatwg] Appcache feedback (various threads)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:46:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101312346340.28618@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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.

Do they have a MIME type? If not, it doesn't much matter.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 15:46:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:30 UTC