| 14:35 | <annekv> | GPHemsley: why does MIME need to reference Fetch? |
| 14:36 | <annekv> | GPHemsley: custom about URLs lead to a network typically, ... I guess I should allow certain arbitrary identifiers to resolve there provided they're documented. |
| 15:50 | <GPHemsley> | annevk: It doesn't need to, necessarily; it just seems like mimesniff and fetch are gently brushing up against each other, so it might be worth connecting them |
| 16:20 | <ambv> | gsnedders: if it was a duplicate then I did it fail for PullDOM and the other didn't? |
| 16:20 | <ambv> | *then how did it |
| 17:04 | <gsnedders> | ambv: That's a more worrying question. |
| 17:27 | <gsnedders> | ambv: "<!DOCTYPE html><html xml:lang=bar><html xml:lang=foo>" in test14.dat should be failing. Why isn't it? |
| 17:27 | <gsnedders> | ambv: (Rhetorical question!) |
| 17:28 | <gsnedders> | ambv: Because doctypes aren't supported by PullDOM. |
| 17:34 | <ambv> | OK. I get it. |
| 18:46 | <GPHemsley> | hmm... if I run all the mimesniff stuff through the filter of the 'parse a MIME type' algorithm, I can sidestep any issues with terminology or existing specs... |
| 18:47 | <GPHemsley> | (I can create something like a "MIME type object" to use spec-internally) |
| 18:47 | <GPHemsley> | (is this where APIs come from?) |
| 18:47 | <GPHemsley> | (or where WebIDL is used?) |
| 18:53 | <GPHemsley> | I don't remember if I knew about RFC 6838 (the latest incarnation of BCP 13, released in January 2013) before... |
| 18:53 | <GPHemsley> | ("Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures") |
| 21:19 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: Do nested browsing contexts have separate security concerns from top-level browsing contexts when it comes to sniffing MIME type? |
| 21:35 | GPHemsley | wonders what to do in situations where an <img> element loads "single-page vector documents (single-page PDFs, XML files with an SVG root element)" or "animated vector graphics (XML files with an SVG root element that use declarative SMIL animation)"... |
| 21:37 | <GPHemsley> | "In particular, img elements should not be used to display transparent images" – shouldn't that be "wholly transparent"? |