On 12/2/2014 7:07 PM, Chris Rebert wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm seeking to move http://bugs.python.org/issue16329 towards conclusion. > Since the discussion on the issue itself seems to have petered out, I > thought I'd bring it up here. > > 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 ) > Mozilla, Microsoft, Opera, and freedesktop.org (the de facto standard > *nix MIME type database package) all acknowledge the existence of a > video/webm MIME type (see the issue for relevant links), and this MIME > type is in WebM's documentation. > However, there is no official IANA registration for WebM's MIME type, > and none seems to be forthcoming/planned. > > As R.D.M. said in the issue: >> So we have two choices: >> leave it to the platform mime types file to define because it is not even on track to be an official IANA standard, >> or include it with a comment that it is a de-facto standard. > [...] >> I guess I'd be OK with adding it as a de-facto standard, though I'm not entirely comfortable with it. But that would represent a change in policy, so others may want to weigh in. > > > Nobody has weighed in during the subsequent ~2 years, so I'm hoping a > few of y'all could weigh in one way or the other, and thus bring the > issue to a definitive conclusion. 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? -- Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4