- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:35:50 +1200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 09:36:17 UTC
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote: > We may have a problem here if we expect a MIME type for each blob. > MIME types are usually defined in terms of the whole file (or the whole > stream for RTP MIME types), including any headers that occur only at the > beginning. > > My expectation is certainly that the MIME type of the file that results > from concatenating all the blobs needs to be clearly defined and useful, > but I don't see a reason to have a MIME type for each blob. > > If Blobs have MIME types in general, that may be an argument against using > Blob. > The MIME type of a Blob is optional. See for example http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/#constructorParams. See also the APIs for concatenating and slicing Blobs --- the idea that a Blob can represent part of a resource is not new. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 09:36:17 UTC