- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:18:35 +0100
- To: public-publ-wg@w3.org
Le 13/12/2017 à 21:05, Timothy Cole a écrit : > Do we also have consensus that there will be no new media type registered for Packaged Web Publications? If so, we must delete section 4.1.1 and 4.1.1.1. FWIW, everything already has a media type: html documents, text files, EPUB packages. Unregistered files fall back to application/octet-stream or text/plain. Our problem is that fragment identifiers are meaningful for a given media type, at best for a group of media types (eg. an area into an image/* resource). Even on a local filesystem, the media type is (sometimes incorrectly) inferred from the file extension, more rarely from file contents' sniffing (think /usr/bin/file). I think it's out of question to override the existing media types with a new one. Example: is a EPUB package a PWP? If yes and if we give PWP a media type, that new media type will "hide" application/epub+zip, a probable no-go. Similarly, I doubt publishers will change the file extension of their packages to allow mime type sniffing server-side; so EPUB packages will remain *.epub and then application/epub+zip. So my take on this topic is the following: we don't need to waste time discussing something that is impossible. </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2017 10:19:04 UTC