Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>  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.
> I think Dave's point was that if you support codecs and containers in
> <video> that are currently supported by widely used plugins, then you are
> more likely to face these legacy issues with broken MIME types when
> deploying <video>. Content authors might well expect that already published
> MP4 files which work in the QuickTime plugin or a Flash-based player, should
> continue to work if embedded via <video>.

They may expect that, but breaking that expectation is less of a problem
than breaking actual existing content.

"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

Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 04:33:33 UTC