W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:40:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Chris Double <chris.double@double.co.nz>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907302236470.6420@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > > Which raises an interesting question.  If a <video> points to data that
> > > has Content-Type metadata that says it's application/octet-stream.... I'd
> > > say that the UA should ignore that and look at the actual data just like
> > > it would if the MIME type is not set.
> > 
> > What should canPlayType() say for application/octet-stream? "maybe"? I can
> > define application/octet-stream as never being "a type that the user agent
> > knows it cannot render", which would give this behaviour and would mean that
> > user agents have to sniff.
> 
> I personally would be fine with the above.

So done.


On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Chris Double wrote:
> 
> If it's defined as a type that we never know if we cannot render we can 
> still choose not to render it and therefore don't have to sniff, for 
> those user agents that choose not to implement sniffing of media types, 
> right?

How would you handle no Content-Type at all? I'm saying that 
application/octet-stream should be treated like that.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 22:41:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT