- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:22:44 -0700
- To: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118CD5B41F6@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
Regarding Issue contentTypeOverride-24 and ACTION-233, Minutes from the IETF/HTML liaison meeting in March: http://esw.w3.org/topic/IETF_HTML5_Meeting_March_2009 And in particular, the topic of "content sniffing" has started a lively discussion on the HTTP working group mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/ I think the discussion seems to recapitulate some of the same arguments about "error handling" 1. Originally, the web required (or should have required) sites to follow spec A (senders may send A, receivers must read/interpret A). 2. the sites didn't do that, they instead exhibited behavior A' (including some things that aren't A compliant) 3. Browsers changed to accept A' 4. Now, some want to change the A standard to describe A' as the standard 5. Others believe that A' should (continue to) be forbidden I think this applies to content type sniffing (A = content-type must match, A' = some content types are determined by sniffing). I think the arguments have to deal with legacy content and controlling future behavior: * There is lots of A' around, and it is impossible to ever changing that, so A' is "reality". * There isn't much A' around, the sites that do it are broken, and a lots of browsers giving errors on A' but accepting A will cause A' to go away * Economic forces are such that browsers won't refuse A' - it's not in their interest, people might use other browsers instead I think this applies to content-type sniffing, mis-nested tags and a few other "error handling" cases. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Saturday, 4 April 2009 06:23:24 UTC