- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:12:14 -0700
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
I think roc was specifically referring to content for the <video> tag. Because no such content currently exists, the legacy compatibility requirements are much less onerous than, say, for HTML. Adam On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Shane McCarron<shane@aptest.com> wrote: > This is my favorite comment in this thread, bar none! Why, oh why are you > all trying so hard to continue to support broken behavior instead of > slapping down the people who insist on doing it wrong? If the user agents > (go Firefox!) just refused to sniff, then no one would send nonsense > content. 'cause it wouldn't work. > > Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >> I should also point out that so far we have had approximately zero >> complaints from authors about the fact that Firefox doesn't sniff. >> >> Rob >> -- >> "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; >> the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are >> healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his >> own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah >> 53:5-6] > > -- > Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 > Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 > ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 06:13:17 UTC