[whatwg] <video> application/octet-stream
Benjamin M. Schwartz
bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu
Wed Jul 21 08:25:49 PDT 2010
On 07/21/2010 10:24 AM, Chris Double wrote:
> Or the developers of said browser could obey the mime type that the
> server sent, not have to write or maintain error prone content
> sniffing code that could behave differently across browsers ("Chrome
> content sniffs this as Ogg but you dont!!", etc), and solve even more
> pressing problems!
I agree. Consider direct URL links (i.e. a URL entered directly into the
browser's address bar). If you sniff content types there, you have to
sniff for _all possible_ types, which creates a major risk of
misidentification, followed by displaying garbage (or worse). If you
don't sniff for direct access, but do sniff for <video>, then you create a
situation in which people's videos will play in a webpage, but won't play
when you link to the video file directly.
Sniffing is bad. Make them fix their servers.
As for slippery slopes ... as long as a large fraction of <video> viewers
(currently a majority) use browsers with strict type checking, I expect
sysadmins to fix their servers PDQ.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the whatwg