On 02Dec2014 21:16, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at 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 <cs at 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
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