- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:09:12 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Per the current rules that would give the same result as a bogus media type though. I.e. lack of Content-Type does not give you the right to start sniffing for <video> / <audio>. So it's also not possible to deliver <video>/<audio> content over HTTP/0.9, or over other protocols that have no way to deliver a Content-Type header (file:// comes to mind)? If that's the case, then it sounds like the rules are badly broken and we should fix them. If not, then presumably we have some rules on how to treat <audio>/<video> in situations when no MIME type is delivered via the network protocol, and should presumably be applying those rules in all such cases, no? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 08:10:15 UTC