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

[whatwg] [MIME Sniffing] Editorial feedback

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:31:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAACrNNeryN645Z_RK6ts+tSxVeFkiCPcjQPwHNfKp3p8emZ7cg@mail.gmail.com>
>> Comparisons between media types, as defined by MIME specifications, are done in an ASCII case-insensitive manner. [RFC2046]

so, the problem is that your `note` here is ambiguous

it's hard to understand that you're just saying `mime rfc says that
mime comparisons are insensitive`,
v. `this specification wants mime comparisons to be insensitive`

you want the former; but `note:` doesn't cause that result; nor does
the `[rfc....]` at the end

> I'm tempted to just rename them to be less semantic.  They're just symbols that don't mean anything, really.

please do :)

> That's a lot of editing!  I'm not sure that buys us much.

i ask, because it actually was useful when i was dealing w/ someone else's spec
they had hex digits and some of them were wrong
it was much easier to read when the hex digits were in <tt>

> That is intentional.  Sniffing SWF is bad times.

i think it might be worth an actual NOTE in the spec explaining that
SWF is intentionally not sniffed, and what that means for untyped SWF
files (actually explaining how it flows and to which resulting sniff

> Thanks to Alfred H?nes Boris Zbarsky David Singer Mark Pilgrim, and Russ Cox.

you  need some punctuation before `Boris`, `David`, and `Mark` :)

>> If RDF-flag is 1 and RSS-flag is 1, then let the sniffed-type be "application/rss+xml" and abort these steps.

could you change that to: If both RDF-flag and RSS-flag are 1, then ...?
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 12:31:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:37 UTC