W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2011

[Bug 11984] Simplify <video> for implementors and authors by ignoring the Content-Type HTTP header

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:26:44 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Pp7oa-00034Y-No@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11984

Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |cdouble@mozilla.com

--- Comment #8 from Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com> 2011-02-14 23:26:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> 
> Uh, just when all browser vendors seemed to be OK with ditching Content-Type...
>

Firefox currently doesn't sniff and respects the Content-Type. We don't plan to
change this behavior at this stage. What I'd like to see is further work and
testing on the content sniffing algorithm before any decision is made to
change.

> What about file:, ftp: and other protocols that don't have any equivalent of
> Content-Type? What about when Content-Type is missing from a HTTP respsonse?

We have an internal mapping from file extension to content type for these
purposes. 

> By reverting this change we'd be bringing back application/octet-stream which
> you don't support. Wouldn't it be better to agree on something and change the
> spec to that than to bring back something which doesn't match any browser and
> never will?

I'd also like the application/octet-stream issue to be dealt with separately as
per Microsoft's request.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 23:26:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 February 2011 23:26:56 GMT