RE: Agenda for TAG teleconference of 21 January 2010

Agenda item 8, ISSUE-51 & ACTION-308:

I think before we cite [barthsniff] we actually
review it more carefully. 

Reading it over I still have a lot of questions
about it.

For example, it has the "resource vs. representation"
bug that HTML has; I think the normative advice
in the  case of malformed content-type may not 
be the same as "no content-type", it's ambiguous
as to whether it applies to "file:" or "ftp:"
or "imap:" or for that matter email content or

I think several W3C specs are advancing using
mimesniff as a normative reference (including
HTML), so getting this reviewed should be timely.

I wasn't sure about the venue for discussing this,
but after a brief discussion, I'll post my comments
to the authors and the IETF apps-discuss mailing
list (for general 'application area' protocol
discussions) and will send a pointer to the 
apps-discuss mailing list archive to www-tag,
http-wg and public-html.


Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 21:24:25 UTC