On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:40:44 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:30 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:22:45 +0200, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi
wrote:
Chris Double wrote:
As I mentioned in a previous email, the sniffing could result
Chris Double wrote:
As I mentioned in a previous email, the sniffing could result in a
reasonable amount of data being consumed. I'm sure people who run
sites that share HTML 5 video would appreciate browsers not consuming
data bandwidth to sniff files that they've already specified as being
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:22:45 +0200, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
Chris Double wrote:
As I mentioned in a previous email, the sniffing could result in a
reasonable amount of data being consumed. I'm sure people who run
sites that share HTML 5 video would appreciate browsers not
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
...I would probably suggest that the
developers of said browser implement basic Ogg support (enough to say
this is Ogg, so we don't
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:18:38 +0200, johan jo...@qx.se wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
...I would probably suggest that the
developers of said browser implement
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:18:38 +0200, johan jo...@qx.se wrote:
If my web server can't handle mapping from a specific file to mime
type, I can always deal with that through server side scripting, and
instead of
On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:30 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:22:45 +0200, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
Chris Double wrote:
As I mentioned in a previous email, the sniffing could result in a
reasonable amount of data being consumed. I'm sure people who run
sites
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
(clients try to guess based on
incorrect information and you end up with stupid switches).
Could you be more specific about the incorrect information? My
understanding, from this thread
While the robustness principle is indeed a good start, this is a
situation where we are mostly starting with a clean slate. No reason
to
muddy the waters without having actual problems in the wild, or else
it's the tag soup situation all again (clients try to guess based on
incorrect
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com schrieb am Wed, 21 Jul 2010
09:15:18 -0400:
and furthermore that the appropriate MIME type
for ogg-with-VP8 vs ogg-with-theora isn't clear (or possibly
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:15:18 +0200, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
(clients try to guess based on
incorrect information and you end up with stupid switches).
Could you be
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Chris Double chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
How much data are you willing to sniff to find out if the Ogg file
contains Theora and/or Vorbis? You have to read the header packets
contained within the Ogg file to get this.
A few kilobytes certainly seems
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:51:40 +0200, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
How much data are you willing to sniff to find out if the Ogg file
contains Theora and/or Vorbis? You have to read the header packets
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:15:18 +0200, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
Could you be more specific about the incorrect information? My
understanding, from this thread and elsewhere, is that video formats
are
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
Opera does not, that would lead to an extra network roundtrip. Instead, when
the MIME type is not one of the allowed ones, the connection is closed
immediately.
Same with Firefox. There's also no guarantee that after
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:55:24 +0200, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:15:18 +0200, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
Could you be more specific about the incorrect information?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
Right, sniffing is currently only done in the context of video, at least
in Opera. The problem could be fixed by adding more sniffing, certainly.
A warning that you're about to open a 5MB text document might be
humane
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I expected, so I guess I don't understand what the how
much are you willing to sniff? question is about.
When content sniffing are we ignoring the mime type served by the
server and always sniffing? If so then
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
When content sniffing are we ignoring the mime type served by the
server and always sniffing? If so then incorrectly configured servers
can result in more downloaded data due to having to read the data
looking for
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
...I would probably suggest that the
developers of said browser implement basic Ogg support (enough to say
this is Ogg, so we don't support it), and go back to solving more
pressing problems!
Or the developers of said
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
...I would probably suggest that the
developers of said browser implement basic Ogg support (enough to say
this is Ogg, so we don't support
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:26:20 +0200, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
...I would probably suggest that the
developers of said
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),
On 7/21/10 9:10 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
While the robustness principle is indeed a good start, this is a
situation where we are mostly starting with a clean slate.
Maciej's point was that Safari doesn't feel like it's starting with a
clean slate.
Lets not forget that the broken
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
I don't like sniffing any more than the next guy, but the work needed to
properly MIME label a modern media format (with the whole container and
multiple streams thing) is ... excessive. I doubt anyone's going to do it,
so
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Chris Double chris.dou...@double.co.nzwrote:
When content sniffing are we ignoring the mime type served by the
server and always sniffing? If so then incorrectly configured servers
can result in more downloaded data due to having to read the data
looking for a
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
Also, in your example the author could have provided type= attributes on
the source elements to control what gets downloaded. I assume that no-one
is proposing we ignore those.
This is true but the provider of the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@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
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:00:41 +0200, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@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
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:00:41 +0200, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
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.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:28
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
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#mime-types
There was some discussion about this, last in
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026409.html
I've tested Firefox 3.6.4, Firefox 4.0b1 and Chrome 5.0.375.99 and none
return maybe for
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#mime-types
There was some discussion about this, last in
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026409.html
I've tested
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:56:09 +0200, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
phil...@opera.comwrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#mime-types
There was some discussion about this, last in
On 19.07.2010 14:56, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
mailto:phil...@opera.com wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#mime-types
There was some discussion about this, last in
35 matches
Mail list logo
