On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > > That's far too generic for servers to default to mapping *.manifest to > > text/cache-manifest. For example, Windows uses *.manifest for SxS > > assembly manifests. > > Do they have a MIME type? If not, it doesn't much matter. >
It does if they're ever served by a webserver, because they'll be served with a completely unrelated Content-Type. (Also, the file format is actually XML, so arguably they do--application/xml--though I wouldn't configure a server that way in general.) Microsoft's mistake is using such a generic name--but these files shouldn't make the same mistake and lay claim to "*.manifest" as if it's the only type of manifest that exists. File extensions will never be without collisions, but an effort should at least be made... -- Glenn Maynard
