W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

Re: venue for review of draft-abarth-mime-sniff-03

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:23:59 +0000
Message-ID: <7789133a1001260123x74f5b0fbk1567788627c5d29f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "W3C/IETF" <w3c-policy@ietf.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Ok.  I've subscribed to apps-discuss and the volume seems to be manageable.

I suspect it will make the most sense to narrow the scope of sniffing
as much as possible.  My guess is that means to HTTP user agents that
wish to volunteer.  I don't think we want to infect email / news /
instant messaging with this craziness (at least not on purpose).

As for substantial editing, the draft already needs that.  :)


On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what the best venue for discussing the
>> draft might be.  I suspect that public-html,
>> whatwg, or ietf-http-wg might have the most
>> knowledgeable folks.
> The document as it stands on does not restrict
> itself to sniffing only in the context of HTML,
> or only for the applications within HTTP. Rather,
> it is a general set of guidelines for content-type
> heuristics. If you mean to have a narrower applicability
> for this document, then it would need substantial
> editing to make that clear, and would then also
> need more analysis of the impact of having one
> interpretation of MIME for HTTP when invoked from
> HTML while another for every other context.
> I picked "apps-discuss" after a discussion
> Lisa (apps area director). While it was previously
> discussed on ietf-http-wg@w3.org, substantial
> parts are out of scope for the current
> HTTPBIS working group.
> One of the major concerns about "sniffing"
> is whether the sniffing rules are compatible with
> the behavior of other Internet applications that
> use MIME, e.g., email, news, instant messaging.
> Since the document and concept has already had
> substantial review within whatwg, ietf-http-wg,
> public-html, and public-webapps, I think the
> concern should turn to insuring review by the
> rest of the affected protocol designers and
> implementors.
> apps-discuss is archived:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Barth
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:15 PM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: HTTP Working Group; public-html@w3.org; public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FYI: review of draft-abarth-mime-sniff-03
> Thanks Larry.  I'm not subscribed to apps-discuss, so I might not see
> discussion that takes place there.  I'm not sure what the best venue
> for discussing the draft might be.  I suspect that public-html,
> whatwg, or ietf-http-wg might have the most knowledgeable folks.
> Adam
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Since raised on W3C TAG
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0076.html:
>> I reviewed draft-abarth-mime-sniff. I'm not sure I found all of the past
>> discussion on the document, and I probably got some wrong, but it hasn't
>> been updated in quite a while.
>> I sent the review to apps-discuss (since it deals with non-HTTP sniffing as
>> well):
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01250.html
>> (discussion on apps-discuss@ietf.org)
>> Since there are several W3C documents advancing that make normative
>> reference to this, getting timely review should be a priority.
>> Larry
>> --
>> http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 09:24:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC