[whatwg] Video with MIME type application/octet-stream

Roger Hågensen rescator at emsai.net
Tue Sep 14 10:22:13 PDT 2010

  On 2010-09-13 15:55, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
> Mikko Rantalainen<mikko.rantalainen at peda.net>  schrieb am Mon, 13 Sep
> 2010 16:03:27 +0300:
>> […]
>> Basically, this sounds like all the issues of BOM for all binary
>> files.
>> And why do we need this? Because web servers are not behaving
>> correctly and are sending incorrect Content-Type headers? What makes
>> you believe that BINID will not be incorrectly used?
>> (If you really believe that you can force content authors to provide
>> correct BINIDs, why you cannot force content authors to provide
>> correct Content-Types? Hopefully the goal is not to sniff if BINIDs
>> seems okay and ignore "clearly incorrect" ones in the future...)
> This. BINID may be a well-intended idea, but would be an essentially
> useless additional layer of abstraction that provides no more
> safeguards against misuse than the Content-Type header.
> The latter also required no changes to current binary file handling —
> which for BINID would need to be universally updated in every
> conceivable device that could ever get a BINID file.

Yeah! That is the one shorterm drawback, while the longterm benefit is 
that file extensions and content type would be redundant (as the files 
themselves would inform what they are, in a standard way).
Oh well! I can always dream that some form of binary id will come about 
in the next decade or so I guess...*laughs*

Roger "Rescator" Hågensen.
Freelancer - http://EmSai.net/

More information about the whatwg mailing list