- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:46:51 +0000 (UTC)
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