On 02Dec2014 21:16, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
On 12/2/2014 7:07 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
To summarize the issue, it proposes adding an entry for WebM (
http://www.webmproject.org/docs/container/#naming ) to the mimetypes
standard library module's file-extension to MIME-type database.
(Specifically: .webm => video/webm ) [...]
If it has remained a defacto standard for the two years since your
made that list, that would be a point in favor of recognizing it.
Have .webm files become more common in actual use?
Subjectively I've seen a few more about that I think I used to.
And there are definitely some .webm files on some websites I support.
Can't say if they're more common in terms of hard data though. But if most
browsers expect them, arguably we should recognise their existence.
Usual disclaimer: I am not a python-dev.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from;
furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just wait for next
year's model. - Andrew S. Tanenbaum
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
