(original) (raw)

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014, 05:56 Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> wrote:

On 02Dec2014 21:16, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@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@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/kaiser.yann%40gmail.com