W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2013

Re: [whatwg] An alternative approach to section 9 of Mime Sniffing

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 06:28:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78jcirQnFZ41DAj7VHZ_fwH2FuiBiT=wqxFT=xSFQ=T3NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote:
> Explain further why you don't recommend ABNF for this case.

We don't recommend ABNF in general because often ABNF results in a
mismatch between prescribed and actual processing. E.g. Content-Type
is defined as an ABNF and technically "text/html;" does not match that
ABNF, but everyone (logically) processes that as "text/html" without

It's much better to define the actual processing so implementers are
less inclined to take shortcuts when implementing (test suites also
help, but they're typically written way-after-the-fact).

> You should also explain whether another change to make section 9 more readable is
> appropriate (though it currently is relatively readable as is).

I'll leave that to Gordon.

Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 05:28:30 UTC

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