On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@iki.fi> wrote: > Resending feedback previously written at > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=808593#c10 : > > I think the bits ‘type is equal to "font" or’ and ‘type is equal to > "archive" or’ are highly questionable. The most popular font types are > in the process of getting application/ types and the most popular > archives already have application/ types.
Buzzkill. ;( > I suspect the ‘a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as determined > by the user agent.’ is unnecessary. The HTML spec has the same > provision for the <meta> prescan. Firefox didn’t implement it, a > couple of people complained, then fixed their code, and the sky didn’t > fall. This line was present in a previous draft of the spec, as was the seeming allowance to begin matching the resource header before it had finished loading. For simplicity in the algorithm, I removed the latter, so I left the former in as an escape hatch for those who wanted to emulate that behavior. But if everyone vows to just wait for 512 bytes (or EOF), then that's fine with me. > What are the use cases for ‘Sniffing archives specifically’? No idea. I only included it for completeness. The 'rules for sniffing * specifically' are intended as hooks for other specs to tie into. If no spec requires you to implement it, then you have no need to implement it. HTML uses 'rules for sniffing images specifically' (and 'rules for distinguishing if a resource is text or binary'), and I imagine it could also find uses for 'rules for sniffing audio specifically' and 'rules for sniffing video specifically' (and maybe even 'rules for sniffing fonts specifically'). > It > appears that it sniffs ODF-style files > (http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/os/OpenDocument-v1.2-os-part3.html#__RefHeading__752809_826425813 > ; EPUB, ODF, InDesign, etc.) and Open Packaging Conventions-based > files (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Packaging_Conventions ; > OOXML, XPS, etc.) files as zip archives. Is that intended and a > desirable outcome in the light of use cases? (In general, it would be > easier to review if the spec makes sense if the use cases and callers > of various sniffing functions were known.) I don't think that's intended, but I don't know. The selection of which bytes to sniff predates me, and I don't know what the use cases are. > Otherwise, looks good to me. Thanks for the review! -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/