Subject: Re: bug#73133: 29.2; EWW fails to render some webpages

From: Jim Porter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 12:17:34 -0700

On 10/19/2024 10:56 AM, Sebastián Monía wrote:
> Thank you everyone for your help in this process.

One last thought before I merge this: I notice that when we can't guess 
a Content-Type, we use "text/plain" as a fallback. Per RFC-9110[1], the 
fallback should be "application/octet-stream".

I tested this out in EWW, and we still display 
"application/octet-stream" pages as text in EWW, so there's no 
difference in behavior by default vs "text/plain". However, users who 
customize 'eww-use-external-browser-for-content-type' could make pages 
like that open externally, which I think makes sense. For non-HTML pages 
with no actual Content-Type header, they're at least reasonably likely 
to be binary files, so you'd probably want to download them rather than 
display them.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the relative merits of falling 
back to "application/octet-stream" vs "text/plain"? If we go with the 
former, I can update the patch when I merge.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#section-8.3-5