[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work

Ian Hickson 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:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7GUgc.115%24_o3.1200%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> " 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 mailing list