Re: SVG media type

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:09:11 -0600
Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:

> G. Wade,
> 
> I'm not sure if you saw my email [1] before you posted this or not.
> Unfortunately this has been a long-standing action item and I'm not
> sure what the technical/political issues behind it are.
> 
> I'm hoping someone on the SVG WG can answer this question as it is
> clear this hinders adoption of the format.

No, I hadn't. But honestly, I was convinced the person in question had
to be wrong and spent some time tracking it down and I was floored to
realize that it had not been registered yet.

If part of the IG's charter is to represent the interests of users of
SVG, is there any benefit in asking as a group?

I would guess we don't have any authority to do anything directly about
the issue, but it seems like we should do something.

Thanks,
G. Wade

> Regards,
> Jeff
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Feb/0010.html
> 
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM, G. Wade Johnson <gwadej@anomaly.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > In answering a FAQ on the SVG Developers list, I got an unexpected
> > response. One of the people in the discussion said his ISP refused
> > to configure the web server to serve SVG because the image/svg+xml
> > mime type wasn't registered.
> >
> > A search of relevant RFCs and IANA seems to support this statement.
> >
> > Is there anything we can do to suggest to W3C that registration of
> > image/svg+xml with IANA would help with the uptake of SVG?
> >
> > G. Wade
> > --
> > Perl's grammar can not be reduced to BNF. The work of parsing perl
> > is distributed between yacc, the lexer, smoke and mirrors.
> >                                                    -- Chaim Frenkel
> >
> >


-- 
Rule of thumb: if you think something is clever and sophisticated,
beware: it is probably self-indulgence.                     -- Donald
Norman

Received on Saturday, 7 February 2009 23:24:40 UTC