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

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:23:04 +0100
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090616182304.GG11893@shareable.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:25:43 +0200, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
> > Simon Pieters wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:55:29 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> >>> I've updated HTML5 to require that Content-Types of types that are not
> >>> supported cause the resource to be ignored (even if it would otherwise  
> >>> be supported).
> >>
> >> If a UA does not know what is not supported, is it reasonable to  
> >> consider anything that is not video/* or audio/* to be not supported?
> >
> > For video, content negotiation is probably going to end up being done
> > in Javascript rather than HTTP, or by User-Agent recognition.
> Still, if the user agent does a request, should it abort the request
> if the media type of the response is not video/* or audio/*?

I'm thinking if the response is an animated GIF, of type image/gif,
why forbid a <video> element from being allowed to play it as a video.

I'm also thinking, why forbid other image/* types from being played as
static videos.  After all, sometimes single-frame video/* files (such
as an MPEG single I-Frame) are sometimes created for this purpose on
real video players.  It would seem odd to allow the display of
single-frame video files, but forbid image/* files from behaving
exactly the same way.

-- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 18:23:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC