Hello,<br><br>This reminds me of when Lucas Gonze was arguing that MIME types (and Content Types) were dead.<br><br><a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/48276">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/48276
</a><br><br><br>See ya<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/12/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kevin Marks</b> <<a href="mailto:kevinmarks@gmail.com">kevinmarks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 4/11/07, Dave Singer <<a href="mailto:singer@apple.com">singer@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> We had to settle on one type that was valid for all files, to deal<br>> with the (common) case where the server was not willing to do
<br>> introspection to find the correct type. We decided that "audio/"<br>> promises that there isn't video, whereas "video/" indicates that<br>> there may be. It's not optimal, agreed.
<br><br>I agree that video/xxx and audio/xxx are useful distinctions. Another<br>point is that as IE ignores MIME types in favour of extensions, in<br>practice we end up with multiple extensionss pointing to the same<br>filetype, to give a cue for differentiation:
<br>.wmv vs .wma<br>.m4v vs .m4a (also .m4p for DRM'd and .m4b for audiobooks, no?)<br><br>That these distinctions keep being made, despite neutral formats with<br>extensions like .mov, .avi, .mp4 and .ogg implies that there is some
<br>utility there.<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br> Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.<br><br> charles @ <a href="http://reptile.ca">reptile.ca</a><br> supercanadian @ <a href="http://gmail.com">
gmail.com</a><br><br> developer weblog: <a href="http://ChangeLog.ca/">http://ChangeLog.ca/</a><br><br>