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

Re: ISSUE-145 (codecs-vs-octet): Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 01:22:37 +0100
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vqelzzuqidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:08:29 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  
wrote:

> On 01/27/2011 01:19 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:23:00 +0100, Julian Reschke
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23.01.2011 15:13, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/NoVideoContentType
>>>>
>>>> Summary: "Simplify <video> for implementors and authors by ignoring  
>>>> the
>>>> Content-Type HTTP header, thereby removing the need to mention
>>>> application/octet-stream at all."
>>>>
>>>> Edit at will. I'll revert at will.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> This one proposes a radical change which *would* affect the original
>>> issue, but goes much further in allowing sniffing where it wasn't
>>> allowed before.
>>>
>>> I thus argue that *if* somebody wants to make a change that drastic,
>>> it should happen under a separate bug/issue.
>>
>> I'll leave it to the chairs to decide if the CP is acceptable or not,
>> for now I have no intention of withdrawing it.
>
> I don't believe that anybody is asking you to withdraw it.  The request  
> to open separate bugs for separate issues is consistent with direction  
> that the editor and chairs have given in the past.

I think it is a separate issue. As such, I've filed a bug for Philip:  
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11984

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2011 00:23:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:22 GMT