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

Re: MIME type for WAVE with PCM?

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:34:32 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830906232134r4c922611v6c02aaf8cc14447c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:59:24 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I sort of get the feeling that defining our own magic list of codec
>>> keywords that map to existing formats would have been easier :/ (Also
>>> for
>>> authors.)
>> You mean easier than using a number? Possibly, although there are at
>> least 104 Wave codecs (!).
> Ouch.
>> But we can still do that, and support both names and numbers in the
>> future, if someone's motivated enough to make up a keyword list.
> I just meant that since the media type plus codecs parameter is not quite stable yet and also complicated maybe it would've been more worth it to just have a magic list of keywords for the configurations browsers support. However, if there are already at least 104 WAVE codecs that might get a bit unwieldy.

RFC2361 also specifies audio/vnd.wave and was specified in 1998. It
might be time for writing an updated RFC, such that audio/wav becomes
the default. Also, looking at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/, somehow audio/vnd.wave
doesn't seem to have made it into the IANA registry.

Do we know anyone in Microsoft who would be supportive of such an
effort? (since the format is "owned" by Microsoft, their blessing for
such an RFC is useful)

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 04:41:30 UTC

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