- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:08:29 -0500
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
On 01/27/2011 01:19 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:23:00 +0100, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >> On 23.01.2011 15:13, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >>> ... >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/NoVideoContentType >>> >>> Summary: "Simplify <video> for implementors and authors by ignoring the >>> Content-Type HTTP header, thereby removing the need to mention >>> application/octet-stream at all." >>> >>> Edit at will. I'll revert at will. >>> ... >> >> This one proposes a radical change which *would* affect the original >> issue, but goes much further in allowing sniffing where it wasn't >> allowed before. >> >> I thus argue that *if* somebody wants to make a change that drastic, >> it should happen under a separate bug/issue. > > I'll leave it to the chairs to decide if the CP is acceptable or not, > for now I have no intention of withdrawing it. I don't believe that anybody is asking you to withdraw it. The request to open separate bugs for separate issues is consistent with direction that the editor and chairs have given in the past. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 19:08:59 UTC