- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 06:49:04 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On May 25, 2009, at 5:54 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > [snip brisk disagreement over meta-issue] > >> (I'll note that I have no idea which contradictions you are >> concerned with, perhaps you can point me to the relevant issues in >> the issue tracker or bugzilla.) > > The current draft contains content sniffing for feeds. If > accurately describes uniform browser behavior. It reinterprets > HTTP. It is not part of a vocabulary. It is not part of associated > API. > > If it weren't contentious, it wouldn't be an issue. It is > contentious. One way to address it is to remove the section. > Another is to label it properly. At first glance, it's not clear to me the detailed feed sniffing algorithm needs to be in the spec. Sniffing feeds in generic XML types is not described at all (presumably left to UA discretion), it's not clear to me why sniffing feeds in HTML needs to be described in detail. I don't think either sniffing feeds in XML or sniffing feeds in HTML is essential to HTML UA interoperability. But perhaps this is better discussed on public-html. Indeed, sniffing of feeds from both XML types and text/html is not browser-specific or HTML-specific. For example, NetNewsWire will happily process the W3C RSS feed and the intertwingly.net Atom feed when they are served as text/html. This may indicate that sniffing is better described in a separate spec that is independent of HTML. > Removing accurate, but incomplete, labels does not address the issue. I don't think replacing one accurate, but incomplete label with another would address the issue either. I hope you can agree with that. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 13:49:46 UTC