[whatwg] [mimesniff] The X-Content-Type-Options header

[Julian Reschke]

On 2012-11-19 19:27, Adam Barth wrote:
> 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.

"initial" -> the one done first, and by the vendor that invented the 
functionality

"incomplete" -> the one that copies one part and not the other part of 
he behavior of the initial implementation

> ...

>> 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?

A use case for *renaming* (which might be more than dropping the prefix) 
actually would be saving bytes on the wire. Another one would be to make 
it possible to make incompatible changes to the field value syntax, when 
needed.

Best regards, Julian