On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Simon Pieters wrote:
> 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
Ok, fixed.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'