W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2012

Re: [whatwg] [mimesniff] Handling container formats like Ogg

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:45:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia_H7+itUOk5ua3xvPG-wPtHF3NFLY4ecmuANC-MFv+OCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley@gmail.com>
Cc: whatwg List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
I included H.264 sniffing in the spec because some implementors
specifically asked for it (and it wasn't all that complicated).  For
Ogg, I'd wait until implementors ask you to include it.

Adam


On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com> wrote:
> Container formats like Ogg can be used to store many different audio
> and video formats, all of which can be identified generically as
> "application/ogg". Determining which individual format to use (which
> can be identified interchangeably as the slightly-less-generic
> "audio/ogg" or "video/ogg", or using a 'codecs' parameter, or using a
> dedicated media type) is much more complex, because they all use the
> same "OggS" signature. It would requiring actually attempting to parse
> the Ogg container to determine which audio or video format it is using
> (perhaps not unsimilar to what is done for MP4 video and what might
> have to be done with MP3 files without ID3 tags).
>
> Would this be something UAs would prefer to handle in their Ogg
> library, or should I spec it as part of sniffing?
>
> --
> Gordon P. Hemsley
> me@gphemsley.org
> http://gphemsley.org/  http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 23:46:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:11 GMT