[whatwg] Appcache feedback (various threads)
pmuellr at muellerware.org
Fri Aug 13 06:02:01 PDT 2010
On 8/12/10 6:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> XML would be much too complex for what is needed. We could possibly
>> remove the media type check and resort to using the "CACHE MANIFEST"
>> identifier (i.e. "sniffing"), but the HTTP gods will get angry.
> Yeah, that's pretty much the way it is.
Although I haven't personally had a problem dealing with the
content-type requirement, I have heard from at least one other colleague
who did; their server was harder to configure.
I had assumed the reason for having the specific text/cache-manifest
content type was to force people to "opt-in" to support, instead of
being able to just read a random URL and having it interpreted, perhaps
maliciously, as a manifest.
If that's not a concern, then I'd like to understand the ramifications
of getting the HTTP angry gods angry by ignoring the content-type.
Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
More information about the whatwg