On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:02:01 +0200, Patrick Mueller
<pmue...@muellerware.org> wrote:
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.
In HTTP (starting HTTP/1.0), entity bodies are identified by the
Content-Type header, not by themselves. We violate that for a number of
scenarios, but we try to stay clear of it in new, until such time comes
that we give up completely on Content-Type. It's a compromise.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
