Ian Hickson wrote:
That's what Content-Type was. Why would Content-Type-2 be any more likely
to be respected than Content-Type?
It wasn't a serious suggestion, merely an expression of frustration.
Although Content-Type-2 might do better than Content-Type if web servers
were strongly, strongly discouraged from shipping files with default
values for particular file extensions, or default values full stop.
BTW, while I'm here: as far as I can tell from the docs, IE only sniffs
for "known" file types. Is there any text MIME type which isn't "known"
to IE, but it displays as plain text anyway?
Naive me would expect browsers to attempt to render text/*, for all
values of * (after all, that's why we have text/ types as opposed to
application/ etc. types), and so I could work around my problem by
serving all these potentially dodgy attachments as text/x-foobar. But I
suspect that this isn't the case.
Gerv
