On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Sam Ruby wrote: > > OK, then perhaps it reflected your thinking at one time? > > http://intertwingly.net/blog/2006/04/13/Dont-throw-charset-out-with-the-bathwater#c1169761908 There's a difference between what I agree the spec should say (which involves compromising between the various constraints like being consistent with other technologies and writing a spec that browser vendors will implement) and what I want it to say. > In any case, I'm currently of a mind that all the text/* mime types are > beyond saving, but the rest are worth fighting for. For what it is > worth. I don't think it's that simple. For example, image/* are a lost cause -- browsers uniformly treat any image types that they support as synonyms for "supported image type", and they use magic numbers to identify types beyond that. <script> elements ignore Content-Type altogether. And so on. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 06:55:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:15 UTC