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

[Bug 13995] <track> Don't check Content-Type for <track>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:33:05 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RIqUT-0006Y8-00@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13995

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #31 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-10-25 23:33:01 UTC ---
We can do whatever, I'm just trying to work out what you want. :-)

I didn't notice the distinction of navigate vs <track> in comment 27's last two
paragraphs, sorry for the confusion. What we do when you navigate to a text/xml
file is pretty much a given, I don't see any way we'd want to sniff for that.
That's why I didn't ask about it.

Currently, what Anne has said and what Philip has said conflict (comment 27 and
comment 29). If we do what <img> does, then we have to explicitly list all the
types we _don't_ want to sniff, which would include the TTML type. But that
doesn't seem to be what Philip is suggesting; if I understand correctly, that's
more a matter of just having a list of formats that we sniff for regardless of
the type when used with <track>, and then falling back on the default; for
navigation, though, the sniffing would work as now, with just one more row in
the MIMESNIFF table.

I guess the remaining question is, if we fallback to the Content-Type, and a 
file is labeled as text/vtt but doesn't have the WEBVTT signature, should we
still try to parse it as WEBVTT, or should we not recognise it? (I guess if we
say that if the signature is missing we still fire onerror, it becomes a
non-issue. See bug 14294.)

-- 
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, 25 October 2011 23:33:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:06 UTC