- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:23:16 -0800
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
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. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-03 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 "data:". 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. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 21:24:25 UTC