[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work
ian at hixie.ch
Sat Jun 26 10:49:00 PDT 2004
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Jim Ley 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
Yes. We want to test things in realistic scenarios.
> > 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
Yes it does. What you are referring to is exactly what I describe above.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg