W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: allowing sniffed type list to be extensible? No.

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 13:23:19 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0905311323r60b49dabs704574355001e6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@messagingarchitects.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> I sort of expect <video src> and <audio src> to do sniffing as well
>> (ignoring Content-Type altogether most likely). @font-face ignores
>> Content-Type as well because nobody had registered media types for fonts.
> If content-type sniffing is context dependent -- @font-face sniffs font
> types which img@src doesn't -- then the draft should be explicit about
> that, rather than suggesting font sniffing for image sources.

The draft does not suggest font sniffing for image sources.

> There's no justification for allowing video@src or audio@src to be
> sniffed. It just opens the door to more problems, and is not supported
> by the justification of backward-compatibility with deployed content --
> is there any other justification, besides someone "sort of expect"ing
> it?

The current draft does not sniff video or audio.  (Actually, we do
sniff MP3s because MP3s turn out to be widely mislabeled.)

Received on Sunday, 31 May 2009 20:24:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:49 UTC