Both Firefox <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/> and WebKit
<https://bugs.webkit.org/> allow you to file evangelism bugs on any web site.
Perhaps it would be best to try that approach first?
Dave
>
>From: Chris Evans <[email protected]>
>To: Darin Adler <[email protected]>
>Cc: [email protected]
>Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 8:59:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] Question on standards mode vs. site compatibility
>
>>On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Darin Adler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On Nov 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Chris Evans wrote:
>>
>>Whilst mining a large list of URLs, I came across some sites that render
>>incorrectly in WebKit but fine in IE.
>>>
>>>
>>>It turns out there exist some sites which declare themselves standards
>>>complaint in their HTML via their DTD. These sites then proceed to try and
>>>load CSS resources with the incorrect MIME type. This promptly fails due to
>>>standards mode.
>>>
>>>
>>>e.g.
>>>http://web.pcc.gov.tw/ uses application/x-pointplus
>>>http://www.emart.co.kr/index.jsp uses application/css
>>>http://www.fotocolombo.it/shop/index.php uses text-css (note the hyphen in
>>>place of a slash)
>>>application/octet stream also appears to be a favourite.
>>
>>
>>That's unfortunate. Out of curiosity, how do these sites behave in Firefox?
>
>
>Broken, in the same way. Fine in IE.
>
>
>
>>
>>What is "enforceCSSMIMETypeInStrictMode()"? Is it a global setting or is
>>there some per-page metadata somewhere?
>>
>>It’s a setting for applications. For web browsers it is set to true. It is
>>not per-page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>We can relax the MIME type list we enforce for "strict mode" without breaking
>>ACID3, although I'm not even sure that's desirable? Is it worth me worrying
>>about this at all or is the correct solution that these sites are just broken
>>and need to fix themselves at some stage? (Pragmatically, I worry that these
>>sites will never fix themselves so users of WebKit-based browsers are SOL).
>>
>>Sounds like a tough choice. It would be unfortunate to have to have a white
>>list of sites that violate this rule.
>
>
>I agree we don't want to be listing sites.
>Our options would seem to be:
>- Do nothing
>- Permit application/x-point-plus and application/css as valid CSS MIME types.
>This would fix some unknown number of sites, and retain ACID3 compatibility.
>(ACID3 checks for CSS load failure with text/plain, I think).
>
>
>Cheers
>Chris
>
>
>
>>>> -- Darin
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
