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