W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2007

[whatwg] Give guidance about RFC 4281 codecs parameter

From: Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:19:28 -0700
Message-ID: <84ce626f0704121219j4317f4a8o2b0846f7cde40829@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,

This reminds me of when Lucas Gonze was arguing that MIME types (and Content
Types) were dead.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/48276


See ya

On 4/12/07, Kevin Marks <kevinmarks at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/11/07, Dave Singer <singer at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > We had to settle on one type that was valid for all files, to deal
> > with the (common) case where the server was not willing to do
> > introspection to find the correct type.  We decided that "audio/"
> > promises that there isn't video, whereas "video/" indicates that
> > there may be.  It's not optimal, agreed.
>
> I agree that video/xxx and audio/xxx are useful distinctions. Another
> point is that as IE ignores MIME types in favour of extensions, in
> practice we end up with multiple extensionss pointing to the same
> filetype, to give a cue for differentiation:
> .wmv vs .wma
> .m4v vs .m4a (also .m4p for DRM'd and .m4b for audiobooks, no?)
>
> That these distinctions keep being made, despite neutral formats with
> extensions like .mov, .avi, .mp4 and .ogg implies that there is some
> utility there.
>



-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles @ reptile.ca
    supercanadian @ gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070412/07e8e16c/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 12:19:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:54 UTC