[whatwg] [mimesniff] The X-Content-Type-Options header
w3c at adambarth.com
Mon Nov 19 10:27:45 PST 2012
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-11-17 19:17, Adam Barth wrote:
>> I would prefer if the spec described what implementations actually do
>> rather than your opinion about what they should do. To answer your
>> specific questions:
> That works well if something is widely supported already. It works less well
> if you have one initial and one incomplete implementation only.
Which implementation is initial and which is incomplete? AFAIK, both
IE and Chromium consider their implementation of this feature done.
>> 1) Don't bother dropping the "X-". Everyone who implements this
>> feature uses the X- and dropping it is just going to cause unnecessary
>> interoperability problems.
> There's no *need* to drop it, but if research on this topic leads to the
> conclusion that the functionality is needed, but the current X- prototype
> isn't sufficient anyway it might be worth considering.
Currently, I don't see a use case for dropping the X- prefix. Perhaps
there's one I don't understand?
More information about the whatwg