[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work
jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jun 25 18:47:59 PDT 2004
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:21:59 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > if I'm wrong (and I probably am) then I would oppose it yes, and would
> > suggest application/prs.hixie.html (and a +xml one for the XML version)
> > for development and testing yes.
> Well that's not going to happen... For one it wouldn't degrade gracefully.
Oh, does graceful degradation matter whilst we're developing it, it's
perfectly possible to get IE6 to render a document sent as that as if
it had been sent as text/html - I would hope the other browsers have
similar extension mechanisms for enabling new mime-types to be
identified with some tweaking. After all no-one's going to be
shipping release code during this development phase.
> Oh you are complaining that when a document sent using one of the three
> default Apache Content-Type headers with content that violates those
> headers by including illegal bytes, Mozilla (and Opera) attempt to detect
> the content to see if it is actually binary data instead of displaying
> (what is guarenteed to be) garbage?
No, the media types one, which I can't easily find but was on
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ at the previous release, it
wasn't just the above feature.
Ah, here we are:
" Firefox 0.8 and Moz 1.7b both have this fixed. The browser sniffs the
file and offers to download it and open it in yourt default media player."
The text/plain document in question contains no invalid characters
More information about the whatwg