- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:23:29 +0100
- To: Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>
- CC: www-voice@w3.org, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, timbl@w3.org, connolly@w3.org, Scott McGlashan <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>
On Friday, February 7, 2003, 8:59:40 PM, Brad wrote: BP> Dan, BP> Hopefully you didn't intend your comments to sound as inflamatory BP> as they might be interpreted. I am sure Dn did not intend to be inflamatory, any more than the initial response intended to be dismissive. BP> HTML and SMIL are in clear conflict on their use of the type attribute. Further, SMIL is in conflict with itself on the type attribute, depending on what element it is used and what the transport protocol is. SVG also uses a type attribute, as an informative hint and as a way to allow client-side selection from available media. BP> Other specifications do not make a clear statement either way. They do, in fact. BP> I have not seen a clear statement from the TAG yet. No, but you will and I hope you will take part in the preceeding discussion. Dans statement was a first heads up, as a matter of courtesy, that the TAG has an open issue on this subject. BP> I have seen BP> substantial email threads debating this issue in different working BP> groups without clear consensus. I would appreciate pointers to such, particularly those that considered retyping was desirable. BP> As is documented in the comments, we did work to address this BP> question with Martin. The working group did choose to follow the BP> language and use from SMIL for the reason that practically BP> speaking not all web servers return the right MIME type for the BP> content. Aha. We suspected that might be the reason. The problem is that this transparent fixup (and sniffing in general) has a number of undesirable knockon effects. BP> If you are not satisfied with the details provided in the BP> response, we would certainly be happy to discuss it further. I would encourage you to do this. BP> I personally would welcome the TAG addressing this issue and I BP> would be very willing to participate in such a discussion. Thanks, this is appreciated. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 15:24:59 UTC