Re: Browsers downloaded linked files regardless of media type

I think advice in instances like this encourage clarity and consistency of implementation. In this instance however, Boris makes good points, so perhaps it would be good to explain why the browser *should* download the file.

This is dependent on whether or not some kind of delaying mechanism, and anti-autload mechanism exist – and I think they should.

On 26 Jan 2011, at 19:56, Peter Moulder wrote:

> HTML5 does have some text like this for the 'type' attribute of <link>:
> 
>  The type attribute gives the MIME type of the linked resource.  It is
>  purely advisory.  The value must be a valid MIME type.
> 
>  For external resource links, the type attribute is used as a hint to
>  user agents so that they can avoid fetching resources they do not
>  support. If the attribute is present, then the user agent must assume
>  that the resource is of the given type (even if that is not a valid
>  MIME type, e.g. the empty string). If the attribute is omitted, but the
>  external resource link type has a default type defined, then the user
>  agent must assume that the resource is of that type. If the UA does not
>  support the given MIME type for the given link relationship, then the
>  UA should not obtain the resource; [...]
> 
> (The meaning of "assume" is clarified in the next paragraph as only
> applying to the decision of whether to "obtain" the resource, not how to
> interpret it once it has been obtained.)
> 
> However, the text for the 'media' attribute doesn't say anything about
> obtaining the resource, it only prescribes whether to apply the resource.
> 
> FWIW, I've no objection to CSS using wording like this.  (I.e. no
> objection based on the grounds of the arguments that I previously
> presented; I'm not in a position to comment on the issues that Boris
> Zbarsky raises.)
> 
> pjrm.
>

Received on Friday, 28 January 2011 04:34:22 UTC