Re: [whatwg] [mimesniff] The X-Content-Type-Options header

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
> On 2012-11-19 19:27, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Julian Reschke <>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-17 19:17, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I would prefer if the spec described what implementations actually do
>>>> rather than your opinion about what they should do.  To answer your
>>>> specific questions:
>>>> ...
>>> That works well if something is widely supported already. It works less
>>> well
>>> if you have one initial and one incomplete implementation only.
>> Which implementation is initial and which is incomplete?  AFAIK, both
>> IE and Chromium consider their implementation of this feature done.
> "initial" -> the one done first, and by the vendor that invented the
> functionality
> "incomplete" -> the one that copies one part and not the other part of he
> behavior of the initial implementation

I can't speak for the IE team, but I can tell you that I don't view
the Chromium implementation as either initial or incomplete.

>>> 1) Don't bother dropping the "X-".  Everyone who implements this
>>>> feature uses the X- and dropping it is just going to cause unnecessary
>>>> interoperability problems.
>>> There's no *need* to drop it, but if research on this topic leads to the
>>> conclusion that the functionality is needed, but the current X- prototype
>>> isn't sufficient anyway it might be worth considering.
>> Currently, I don't see a use case for dropping the X- prefix.  Perhaps
>> there's one I don't understand?
> A use case for *renaming* (which might be more than dropping the prefix)
> actually would be saving bytes on the wire. Another one would be to make it
> possible to make incompatible changes to the field value syntax, when
> needed.

I don't have any interest in making any incompatible changes to this
feature in Chromium at this time.


Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 20:50:13 UTC