- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 01:22:37 +0100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:08:29 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 01/27/2011 01:19 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:23:00 +0100, Julian Reschke >> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> >>> On 23.01.2011 15:13, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >>>> ... >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/NoVideoContentType >>>> >>>> Summary: "Simplify <video> for implementors and authors by ignoring >>>> the >>>> Content-Type HTTP header, thereby removing the need to mention >>>> application/octet-stream at all." >>>> >>>> Edit at will. I'll revert at will. >>>> ... >>> >>> This one proposes a radical change which *would* affect the original >>> issue, but goes much further in allowing sniffing where it wasn't >>> allowed before. >>> >>> I thus argue that *if* somebody wants to make a change that drastic, >>> it should happen under a separate bug/issue. >> >> I'll leave it to the chairs to decide if the CP is acceptable or not, >> for now I have no intention of withdrawing it. > > I don't believe that anybody is asking you to withdraw it. The request > to open separate bugs for separate issues is consistent with direction > that the editor and chairs have given in the past. I think it is a separate issue. As such, I've filed a bug for Philip: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11984 -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2011 00:23:17 UTC