Re: [tlug] Firefox 3.0.1 doesn't respect <meta http-equiv="content-type">

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2008-09-16 13:48 +0900 (Tue), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> How is the meaning of data outside the encapsulation changed?  The
> HTTP header if it exists means what it means.

In other words, something possibly encapsulated inside an HTTP message
unit is attempting to change things about the HTTP message unit that may
or may not be encapsulating it. This is wrong.

> It can be true or false, but the server has no way to enforce truth
> on the content *unless it groks the content*, which it doesn't, and
> probably cannot if it is to be reasonably efficient.

Fair enough; you can argue that the content-type header should not be
part of the HTTP standard.

> What the META element changes is the meaning of the HTML document data
> *inside* the encapsulation.

Rubbish. What "meaning of HTML document data" is this changing?

    <META http-equiv="Age" content="12">

In the end, having a Content-type delivered by HTTP for whatever
it's encapsulating makes as much sense as a Windows box interpreting
any file ending in ".jpg" as a JPEG file, and a Mac interpreting any
file whose resource fork says it's a JPEG file as a JPEG file. (Well
strictly, JFIF files, but whatever.) If you're railing against all file
file formats not being self-identifying, well, you may have a point.
But insisting that it's reasonable for some data to attempt modify
information specified by a protocol unit encapsulating it is a path
towards insanity, and though I've read your arguments fairly carefully,
I don't think you're going to convince me that it's ever a good idea.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com