Dave Singer wrote: > I think this is a good idea, but one rapidly runs into the problems > talked about in the 'bucket' RFC, notably that there is not a > universal language for naming codecs (4ccs etc). But it's proved > useful in the past. > > In general, the source fallbacks are also a way to 'probe' this, > albeit in a very different way. > > I'm not sure you can always get a definitive answer to the question > "if I gave you a file with this (extended) MIME type, could you play > it?" and I am fairly sure that asking the implementation to enumerate > all the types it could support would be hard.
If you can't get an answer to that question, then how will the browsers implement <source> fallbacks? What I'm suggesting is basically the same, except without the requirement to download a video file. All the issues with type names are also present with <source>. -- Tim Starling