Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MIME type parsing, stricter rules #44

Closed
annevk opened this issue Nov 24, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

MIME type parsing, stricter rules #44

annevk opened this issue Nov 24, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@annevk
Copy link
Member

@annevk annevk commented Nov 24, 2017

In https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/773321 @yutakahirano and @tyoshino work on a MIME type parser for XMLHttpRequest that is quite a bit stricter than the proposal in #36 (though not as strict as the RFC as far as I can tell; failing on text/html; would also undoubtedly break sites). If we can actually use that all over the web platform that is arguably somewhat better.

This is to track its success. I'd rather not block #36 on the outcome, but use the outcome to further refine the tests already written and the standard itself.

@domenic
Copy link
Member

@domenic domenic commented Nov 24, 2017

I think that parser is just used in tests to judge pass/fail, not for deployment in Chrome.

@annevk
Copy link
Member Author

@annevk annevk commented Nov 24, 2017

How would you pass those tests then though?

@domenic
Copy link
Member

@domenic domenic commented Nov 24, 2017

The tests are actually loosening the requirements by testing that the browser's output parses into the right value, instead of just testing the browser's output for an exact string match. In other words, they don't really test parsing, just serialization.

@annevk
Copy link
Member Author

@annevk annevk commented Nov 24, 2017

I see; I'd like us not to go in that direction. Maybe I should put up my own proposed modifications for that test for comparison.

@annevk
Copy link
Member Author

@annevk annevk commented Nov 24, 2017

@annevk
Copy link
Member Author

@annevk annevk commented Nov 26, 2017

Closing this as a duplicate of #39 as that one is also focused on the XMLHttpRequest angle and there's not really anything new here apparently.

@annevk annevk closed this Nov 26, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.