- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:46:50 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I'll leave that one for the TAG et al to discuss; sniffing filename extensions is new, isn't it? It's not new and therefore acknowledging it seems appropriate. > The other one I'm aware of is the +web stuff in the URI scheme, but that can be taken care of with a short update to the URI scheme registration doc. Documents that nobody uses are not an effective measure I think. >> Simon Sapin pointed out there's also /robots.txt. And there's >> /favicon.ico. Apple has hijacked various icon related URLs too, which >> other vendors have copied to some extent. It seems at least >> "/favicon.ico" and "/robots.txt" should be considered exceptions, too. > > Yeah, that's not standard, so not really in scope for this (although it'd be nice if others listened). Effectively, they're grandfathered in by the well-known URI spec. "/favicon.ico" is part of HTML these days, as fallback for lacking rel=icon. Not pointing out the well-known exceptions makes this document less useful than it could be I think. You make it much easier to dismiss by only caring about theory. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 13:47:17 UTC