W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: link metadata cannot override server media type

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:23:29 +0100
Message-ID: <189180460157.20030207212329@w3.org>
To: Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>
CC: www-voice@w3.org, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, timbl@w3.org, connolly@w3.org, Scott McGlashan <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>

On Friday, February 7, 2003, 8:59:40 PM, Brad wrote:

BP> Dan,

BP> Hopefully you didn't intend your comments to sound as inflamatory
BP> as they might be interpreted.

I am sure Dn did not intend to be inflamatory, any more than the
initial response intended to be dismissive.

BP> HTML and SMIL are in clear conflict on their use of the type attribute.

Further, SMIL is in conflict with itself on the type attribute,
depending on what element it is used and what the transport protocol

SVG also uses a type attribute, as an informative hint and as a way to
allow client-side selection from available media.

BP>  Other specifications do not make a clear statement either way.

They do, in fact.

BP> I have not seen a clear statement from the TAG yet.

No, but you will and I hope you will take part in the preceeding

Dans statement was a first heads up, as a matter of courtesy, that the
TAG has an open issue on this subject.

BP> I have seen
BP> substantial email threads debating this issue in different working
BP> groups without clear consensus.

I would appreciate pointers to such, particularly those that
considered retyping was desirable.

BP> As is documented in the comments, we did work to address this
BP> question with Martin. The working group did choose to follow the
BP> language and use from SMIL for the reason that practically
BP> speaking not all web servers return the right MIME type for the
BP> content.

Aha. We suspected that might be the reason. The problem is that this
transparent fixup (and sniffing in general) has a number of
undesirable knockon effects.

BP> If you are not satisfied with the details provided in the
BP> response, we would certainly be happy to discuss it further.

I would encourage you to do this.

BP> I personally would welcome the TAG addressing this issue and I
BP> would be very willing to participate in such a discussion.

Thanks, this is appreciated.

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 15:24:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:36 UTC