- From: Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:02:30 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, whatwg List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Gordon P. Hemsley wrote: >> But if everyone vows to just wait for 512 bytes (or EOF), then that's >> fine with me. > > I don't think we should require tools to wait for 512 bytes. This is an > area where if we have the requirement, some user agents are just going to > have a timeout anyway and ignore the spec; we gain nothing by making it > non-conforming to have a timeout. I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm curious what other implementers have to say on the issue. >> > What are the use cases for ‘Sniffing archives specifically’? >> >> No idea. I only included it for completeness. > > Please don't spec things for completeness without use cases. :-) In that case, I need to know which you think you might want for HTML and which you know you won't. (I don't know of any other specs reliant on mimesniff.) -- Gordon P. Hemsley me@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:15:07 UTC