ACTION-386: Review draft-barth-sniff and send comments, cc TAG

Review draft-barth-sniff and send comments, cc TAG

State:
closed
Person:
Larry Masinter
Due on:
April 8, 2010
Created on:
February 4, 2010
Associated Issue:
contentTypeOverride-24
Related emails:
  1. Draft minutes from 20 May 2010 (from Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com on 2010-05-26)
  2. Re: Draft minutes from 20 May 2010 (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2010-05-26)
  3. Agenda for TAG teleconference of 20 May 2010 (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2010-05-19)
  4. Preparation for this week's TAG teleconference: F2F Agenda Preparation (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2010-05-19)
  5. minutes TAG meeting 24-26 March in Cambridge, MA, USA for review (from connolly@w3.org on 2010-04-12)
  6. Draft Agenda of 24-26 March 2010 (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2010-03-19)
  7. Draft minutes of TAG teleconference of 11 March 2010 (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2010-03-19)
  8. RE: 'sniffing' (from masinter@adobe.com on 2010-03-13)
  9. Re: draft minutes 3/11 (from ashok.malhotra@oracle.com on 2010-03-13)
  10. draft minutes 3/11 (from LMM@acm.org on 2010-03-11)
  11. What is 'the type of X' if X doesn't have a declared type? (from masinter@adobe.com on 2010-03-11)
  12. Tag Members: Please review your open actions ASAP as input to F2F agenda (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2010-03-10)
  13. TAG telcon minutes for 25 Feb 2010 (from jar@creativecommons.org on 2010-03-02)
  14. Re: Amended draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 4th February 2010 (from ashok.malhotra@oracle.com on 2010-02-08)
  15. Amended draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 4th February 2010 (from john@jkemp.net on 2010-02-05)
  16. Draft minutes of TAG teleconference, 4th February 2009 (from john@jkemp.net on 2010-02-05)
  17. Re: suggestions for next week's agenda as a result of today's meeting (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2010-02-04)
  18. suggestions for next week's agenda as a result of today's meeting (from connolly@w3.org on 2010-02-04)

Related notes:

Sigh, dealing with absolutely stupid W3C HTML WG process issue has completely distracted me. Postponing.

Larry Masinter, 10 Feb 2010, 17:43:02

I'm still working on this, but I'm making some progress. The main thing that needs to happen, IMHO, is to make sniffing "opt-in" on a case-by-case basis, e.g., only sniff sites you've never been to before, warn the user if you're sniffing, only sniff text/plain but not any other type, etc. etc.

The document still doesn't read that way. Part of the problem is the presumption that the sniffed type is "correct" and that sniffing is "correcting an error", when I think the language should say that sniffing is a heuristic, a guess, and in some cases, the guess is wrong and the original content-type is right, and it is the user agent's responsibility to continually make that evaluation rather than leave error-correction-of-error always the default forever.

At this point, I don't think I can get the point across by complaining, and instead I'm working on a rewrite.

Larry Masinter, 3 Mar 2010, 05:04:30

I'm not going to have time to get this done before F2F without some help.

Larry Masinter, 10 Mar 2010, 23:51:22

See also John Kemp's ACTION-399.

Larry Masinter, 10 Mar 2010, 23:52:30

[DanC_]: comments 20 Jan on draft 3 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01250.html

25 Mar 2010, 15:08:35

This has become a W3C/IETF Liaison issue, see:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2010May/

If W3C documents make normative reference to documents in the IETF which are not actually being tracked by IETF (they're more "editor's draft", with no schedule.)


I think the last discussion on apps-discuss was around
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01250.html>.

> It isn't an official IETF document, in that it doesn't list an intended status, nor is it being watched by an AD:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-abarth-mime-sniff/
>
> I think the appropriate thing to do is to bring it up as a liaison matter; I'll do so shortly.

Sounds right to me.

There's a related HTML WG issue --
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/104> -- for which I'm supposed
to write a change proposal but didn't because of the unclear state of
the I-D.

Also, related to this, see
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9628>.

Larry Masinter, 18 May 2010, 00:57:22

Anyway, I don't think there's any point to reviewing the -5 document again, because the review comments on -03 weren't addressed, and unless there's some procedural way of insuring that there's technical review from the affected communities, there's no point in having a TAG discussion about it.

I don't think any W3C document should make normative (or even informative) reference to [MIMESNIFF] until its at least entered into some standards track.

Larry Masinter, 18 May 2010, 01:00:30

See first several messages of

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2010May/

Larry Masinter, 18 May 2010, 23:44:27

[DanC]: note thread in IETF/W3C liaison list with mnot, barth, lmm, hickson http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2010May/thread.html#msg0

20 May 2010, 16:51:17

Display change log.


Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Peter Linss <w3c@linss.com>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, Chairs, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $