IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] font sniffing

Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> Mon, 24 October 2011 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7ADE21F8C13 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1R6ohv4Tov3I for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [83.169.7.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE1A21F8AF2 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=hvtEz1QSNqpOsBDQ6eXXhS/Rm6y9kL/4k7UkvN0tgIb8NbSyURLlrH+Gl4GBX0JIAE/9+2c7i0KDHSkcbTvOftQzYRXBvU+vUqcwO/sE+es703/4R47kkswf2XAFwJoy; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type;
Received: (qmail 28303 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2011 11:13:46 +0200
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.5.5.61?) (61.8.220.69) by www.gondrom.org with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 24 Oct 2011 11:13:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA52C49.1090308@gondrom.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:13:45 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110923 Thunderbird/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: annevk@opera.com
References: <CAJE5ia82hhiyQHboBg5cWLe_=VdSZ1pFgFi0_TiiwgJKxKesfw@mail.gmail.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0605EFA3B4@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EA4D8B8.7010108@gondrom.org> <op.v3umd8p264w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
In-Reply-To: <op.v3umd8p264w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010604010702090508030700"
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] font sniffing
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:14:48 -0000

On 24/10/11 10:09, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:17:12 +0900, Tobias Gondrom 
> <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote:
>> I have a question regarding font sniffing:
>> Besides the short discussion at the last meetings, I do not recall much
>> interest for that on the mailing-list. So, I am not sure how much
>> interests really exists for the working group to be addressing that?
>> (i.e. adding content-types for fonts and adding them to the mime-sniff
>> draft...)
>> Am I mistaken?
>
> It is not so much about interest I think. If implementations sniff for 
> fonts, it should be defined how they are to go about that.
>
>

Thanks for the reply.

Well, AFAIK we don't even have a content-type for fonts in the IANA 
registry at the moment?
So my - maybe naive - question would be, do implementations sniff for 
fonts and why did they not ask for a content-type?

Tobias

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email