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

Re: [whatwg] [mimesniff] Audio and video sniffing

From: Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:03:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH4e3M62xKk4Bp7HJck8yfztqJjLCtN1H9n3LosSyz0eiiVN4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: whatwg List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Done: https://github.com/whatwg/mimesniff/commit/77ee676c8852f4e76facd7d6c1174ac0ec41696e

Note that this also affects the "media type sniffing algorithm" and
the "rules for identifying an unknown media type".

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:38:02 +0100, Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Upon looking through the code for Gecko's media sniffing, I noticed
>> that they seem to combine sniffing for audio and video elements. Given
>> that Opera has said that it uses the specific sniffing algorithms, and
>> that some media containers (like Ogg) can be used for either audio or
>> video, I wonder if it would make sense to combine audio and video
>> sniffing under a single audiovisual category? This would affect the
>> "matching audio/video type pattern" sections and the "sniffing
>> audio/video specifically" sections.
>>
>> Any objections? Other thoughts?
>
>
> Yes, I think it makes sense to have the same sniffing for both. <audio> is
> like <video> without the rendering area.
>
> --
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software



-- 
Gordon P. Hemsley
me@gphemsley.org
http://gphemsley.org/http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 18:11:54 GMT

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