Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:55:29 +0200, Ian Hickson <> 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?

The way the spec is phrased, yes.

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> For video, content negotiation is probably going to end up being done in 
> Javascript rather than HTTP, or by User-Agent recognition.

HTML5 actually has a built-in way of doing fallback for <video>.

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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/*?

Assuming the type is one "that the user agent knows it cannot render", 

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 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 believe the spec allows this.

> 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.

I believe a browser is allowed to do this as currently written.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 11:11:43 UTC