On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 02:46:29 +0200, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
The Ogg page begins with the 4 bytes OggS, which is what
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:56:54 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/6/10 3:19 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Philip Jägenstedtphil...@opera.com
wrote:
The Ogg page begins with the 4 bytes OggS, which is what Opera
(GStreamer)
checks for. For additional
NOTE! This email contains URLs to pages that crash WebKit on reload, so you
probably shouldn't follow the URLs here in any WebKit-based browser where you
have something important going on in the same renderer process. (In Chrome,
only the isolated content process crashes.)
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010
On 09/07/2010 03:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
P.S. Sniffing is harder that you seem to think. It really is...
Quite. It surprises and saddens me that anyone wants to argue for *more*
sniffing, and even enshrining it in a web standard.
Sniffing is a perpetual disaster that, after several
On 07.09.2010 11:51, And Clover wrote:
On 09/07/2010 03:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
P.S. Sniffing is harder that you seem to think. It really is...
Quite. It surprises and saddens me that anyone wants to argue for *more*
sniffing, and even enshrining it in a web standard.
+1
Sniffing is
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:51:55 +0200, And Clover and...@doxdesk.com wrote:
On 09/07/2010 03:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
P.S. Sniffing is harder that you seem to think. It really is...
Quite. It surprises and saddens me that anyone wants to argue for *more*
sniffing, and even enshrining it
On 07.09.2010 12:52, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
...
IE9, Safari and Chrome ignore Content-Type in a video context and rely
on sniffing. If you want Content-Type to be respected, convince the
developers of those 3 browsers to change. If not, it's quite inevitable
that Opera and Firefox will
On 9/7/10 6:52 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
It hasn't been explicitly stated, but I assume that the only cases where
sniffing for video formats would be employed would be for missing
Content-Type, text/plain and application/octet-stream.
That's not what at least Aryeh is proposing, no. Also
On 9/7/10 6:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Hmm, that's what Content-Disposition: attachment is for...
This header is currently ignored in non-toplevel browsing contexts in
web browsers, last I checked.
-Boris
On 9/7/10 4:11 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
It's garbage in at least UTF-8, Big5 and GBK.
Thanks. I assume that applies to the OggS\0 sequence too, right? I
appreciate the data!
I'm not sure what infrastructure is in place, but perhaps one could
*not* sniff if Content-Type also indicates
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:54:15 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/7/10 6:52 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
It hasn't been explicitly stated, but I assume that the only cases where
sniffing for video formats would be employed would be for missing
Content-Type, text/plain and
On 9/7/10 9:03 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:54:15 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/7/10 6:52 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
It hasn't been explicitly stated, but I assume that the only cases where
sniffing for video formats would be employed would be for
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:56:38 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/7/10 4:11 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
It's garbage in at least UTF-8, Big5 and GBK.
Thanks. I assume that applies to the OggS\0 sequence too, right? I
appreciate the data!
UTF-8, Big5 and GBK are all (as
On 9/7/10 9:16 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
UTF-8, Big5 and GBK are all (as far as I know) ASCII supersets. Do
real-world text documents include \0 bytes?
Yes. Real-world text documents include all sorts of gunk. Just rarely.
As long as indicates an encoding doesn't include UTF-8 or
On Sep 7, 2010, at 3:52 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:51:55 +0200, And Clover and...@doxdesk.com wrote:
On 09/07/2010 03:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
P.S. Sniffing is harder that you seem to think. It really is...
Quite. It surprises and saddens me that anyone
On Sep 7, 2010, at 2:51 , And Clover wrote:
On 09/07/2010 03:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
P.S. Sniffing is harder that you seem to think. It really is...
Quite. It surprises and saddens me that anyone wants to argue for *more*
sniffing, and even enshrining it in a web standard.
Yes. We
And like I said before, please be careful of assuming our intent and desires
from the way things currently work. We are thinking, listening, and
implementing (and fixing bugs, and re-inspecting older behavior in lower-level
code), so there is some...flexibility...I think.
On Sep 7, 2010, at
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 07.09.2010 11:51, And Clover wrote:
On 09/07/2010 03:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
P.S. Sniffing is harder that you seem to think. It really is...
Quite. It surprises and saddens me that anyone wants to argue for
On 9/7/10 3:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
It sadden me when standards bodies ignore reality and leave
implementors to invent their own non-iteroperable algorithms for
security-critical behavior.
Of course nothing prevents us from saying UAs MUST NOT sniff but if they
do anyway they MUST use a
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:51 AM, And Clover and...@doxdesk.com wrote:
Quite. It surprises and saddens me that anyone wants to argue for *more*
sniffing, and even enshrining it in a web standard.
I'm not a fan of sniffing, but I'm also not a fan of blindly believing
clearly wrong MIME types and
On 9/7/10 3:29 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
* Sniff only if Content-Type is typical of what popular browsers serve
for unrecognized filetypes. E.g., only for no Content-Type,
text/plain, or application/octet-stream, and only if the encoding is
either not present or is UTF-8 or ISO-8859-1. Or
On 9/7/10 3:29 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
* Sniff only if Content-Type is typical of what popular browsers serve
for unrecognized filetypes. E.g., only for no Content-Type,
text/plain, or application/octet-stream, and only if the encoding is
either not present or is UTF-8 or ISO-8859-1. Or
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Sep 3, 2010, at 20:55, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I'm not sure it makes much of a difference from a security point of
view.
Agreed. Pages can only move
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/7/10 3:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
It sadden me when standards bodies ignore reality and leave
implementors to invent their own non-iteroperable algorithms for
security-critical behavior.
Of course nothing prevents us
Of course nothing prevents us from saying UAs MUST NOT sniff but if they do
anyway they MUST use a given algorithm, right?
That's a contrary to duty imperative, which is something that's been
puzzling philosophers for centuries. A more sensible requirement
would be that user agents SHOULD NOT
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Of course nothing prevents us from saying UAs MUST NOT sniff but if they
do
anyway they MUST use a given algorithm, right?
That's a contrary to duty imperative, which is something that's been
puzzling philosophers for
Hi,
Several specs, like File API and WebGL, use ArrayBuffer, while other spec,
like XMLHttpRequest Level 2, use ByteArray. Should we change to use the same
name all across our specs? Since we define ArrayBuffer in the Typed Arrays
spec (
On 08/29/2010 08:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David John Burrowes
bain...@davidjohnburrowes.com wrote:
I agree that they don't have access to versioning info from within the
languages.
But, CSS has some sense of versions (CSS, CSS2, and CSS3). This gives me
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
On 08/29/2010 08:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David John Burrowes
bain...@davidjohnburrowes.com wrote:
I agree that they don't have access to versioning info from within the
On 9/7/10 5:35 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
In any case, lawyering the requirement level in the spec isn't the way
to solve these problems. You need to change the underlying incentives
to actually affect what gets implemented.
The incentive structure for pretty much any sort of sniffing is a
Hi,
In HTML fragment serialization algorithm, we skip elements with empty
content model in step 2.2:
If current node is an
areahttp://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-map-element.html#the-area-element
,
The HTML parser expands the isindex element into a bunch of other
elements, so it never inserts that element into the tree. Of course,
an isindex element could have been inserted via the DOM...
Adam
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa ryosuke.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
In HTML
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Chris Double wrote:
Firefox (in the case of video) uses file extensions to identify video
files. We have an internal maping of file extensions to mime types. We
don't sniff the content. I imagine we'd do the
Consider this testcase:
!doctype html
html
body
canvas id=c width=200 height=200/canvas
script
try {
var c = document.getElementById(c),
t = c.getContext(2d);
t.moveTo(100, 100);
t.lineTo(NaN, NaN);
t.lineTo(50, 25);
t.stroke();
} catch (e)
In 4.8.11.1 the spec does state:
Except where otherwise specified, for the 2D context interface, any method
call with a numeric argument whose value is infinite or a NaN value must be
ignored.
-Sam
On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Consider this testcase:
!doctype html
This seems like a strange choice of behavior. Given that this is very
likely a bug in the program, wouldn't it make more sense to throw an
exception as to make it easier to debug? Similar to for example
Node.appendChild when called with a null argument.
/ Jonas
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:32 PM,
36 matches
Mail list logo
