W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2009

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:05:35 -0700
Message-Id: <p06240872c660401ccf26@[]>
To: robert@ocallahan.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
At 16:32  +1200 18/06/09, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak 
><<mailto:mjs@apple.com>mjs@apple.com> 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.

sorry, you've lost me.  breaking that expectation does break existing 
content;  and I can't see how doing content sniffing breaks more 
content than not.  can you explain?
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 19:06:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:49 UTC