W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2011

[Bug 11984] Simplify <video> for implementors and authors by ignoring the Content-Type HTTP header

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:47:03 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PpGYp-0004tk-ES@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #11 from Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> 2011-02-15 08:47:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > 
> > Uh, just when all browser vendors seemed to be OK with ditching Content-Type...
> >
> Firefox currently doesn't sniff and respects the Content-Type. We don't plan to
> change this behavior at this stage. What I'd like to see is further work and
> testing on the content sniffing algorithm before any decision is made to
> change.

I've discussed this with Robert O'Callahan, see
<http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110127#l-831>. I'm not surprised that
you're not a fan of the idea, though.

Should I take this that you'd consider dropping Content-Type if the solution
gets spec'd, tested and shipped in another browser?

> > What about file:, ftp: and other protocols that don't have any equivalent of
> > Content-Type? What about when Content-Type is missing from a HTTP respsonse?
> We have an internal mapping from file extension to content type for these
> purposes. 

Even for missing HTTP Content-Type? How about Content-Type:

> > By reverting this change we'd be bringing back application/octet-stream which
> > you don't support. Wouldn't it be better to agree on something and change the
> > spec to that than to bring back something which doesn't match any browser and
> > never will?
> I'd also like the application/octet-stream issue to be dealt with separately as
> per Microsoft's request.

Would that be ISSUE-145, or the issue of whether or not to play HTTP resources
with Content-Type: application/octet-stream ?

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 08:47:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:41 UTC