[whatwg] Appcache feedback (various threads)
glenn at zewt.org
Mon Jan 31 15:36:49 PST 2011
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, David John Burrowes wrote:
> > I can understand wanting to do things right, in terms of using
> > Content-Type for the file. I can also attest that it can be a royal
> > pain to diagnose when this is set wrong. I wonder it it would make
> > sense to have a recommended file extension for the manifest (e.g.
> > "cachemanifest" so "myapp.cachemanifest"). (maybe "manifest" is a fine
> > extension, as implied in the spec. It seems a bit generic of a name to
> > me, though). This way, web server developers could add this into their
> > default configurations.
> The spec's text/cache-manifest registration suggests "manifest".
That's far too generic for servers to default to mapping *.manifest to
text/cache-manifest. For example, Windows uses *.manifest for SxS assembly
More information about the whatwg