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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2011 01:32:25 UTC