On 01.09.2010 15:13, Brian Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/31/10 3:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
You might say "Hey, but aren't you content sniffing then to find the
codecs" and you'd be right. But in this case we're respecting the MIME
type sent by the server - it tells the browser to whatever level of
detail it wants (including codecs if needed) what type it is sending. If
the server sends 'text/plain' or 'video/x-matroska' I wouldn't expect a
browsers to sniff it for Ogg content.
The Microsoft guys responded to my suggestion that they might want to
implement something like this with "what's the benefit of doing that?".
One obvious benefit is that videos with the wrong type will not work, and hence
videos will be sent with the right type.
What makes you say this? Even if they are sent with the right type initially,
the correct types are at high risk of bitrotting.
The big problem with MIME types is that they don't stick to files very well.
So, while someone might get them working when they initially use video, if they
move to a different web server, or upgrade their server, or someone mirrors
their video, or any of a number of other things, they might lose the proper
association of files and MIME types.
...
That's true, and the reason why people still use file extensions.
That's not super elegant, but it works.
Best regards, Julian
