W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2010

[whatwg] <video> application/octet-stream

From: James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:03:38 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikEHLqnm18497r=286Sec-bS09iOaNa0QtKtsyH@mail.gmail.com>
I would like to speak up for sniffing because I believe in the
robustness principle.  I don't know why people who are capable of
coding hundreds of lines of dense, uncommented javascript can't get
their web servers to declare the correct type of their media files,
but it happens so often that I think sniffing is completely
reasonable.

There aren't too many media types without distinctive headers these
days, so the actual arguments against sniffing are pretty weak, aren't
they?

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Philip J?genstedt <philipj at opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:00:41 +0200, Chris Double <chris.double at double.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Philip J?genstedt <philipj at opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear from Mozilla, Google and Apple which of these (or other)
>>> solutions they would find acceptable.
>>
>> You'll probably get different responses depending on who in Mozilla
>> responds. For example, I prefer option (1) and am against content
>> sniffing. Other's at Mozilla disagree I'm sure.
>
> I'd like to hear from those that will actually make the decision and write
> the code.
>
> I could go with (1) if Chrome does too.
>
> --
> Philip J?genstedt
> Core Developer
> Opera Software
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2010 22:03:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:25 UTC