W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: [widgets] Content-type sniffing and file extension to MIME mapping

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:53:22 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670812050653l4629b792xaf89798f686da9d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

Hi Laurens,
2008/12/5 Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>:
> Marcos Caceres schreef:
>> Ok, hearing no objections, then I propose we bake in the following
>> file extensions into the spec (we can debate which MIME types to use
>> after we settle on the extensions!):
>> .html
>> .htm
>> .css
>> .gif
>> .jpeg
>> .png
>> .js
>> .json
>> .xml
>> .txt
>> The following we should probably bake in too:
>> .mp3
>> .swf
>> .wav
>> .svg
>> .ico
>> We may bake in the following:
>> xhtml
> Why 'may'? It seems to me that application/xhtml+xml deserves a MIME type
> mapping just like text/html does. Unless you have a personal preference for
> text/html and want to perpetuate that in this specification? ;)

Moi? a personal political agenda to rid the word of
application/xhtml+xml? never! :P

Seriously speaking, the list of types is supposed to reflect what the
working group believes are the core development technologies that
underpin widgets (for version 1.0, at least). I personally don't have
an issue with including application/xhtml+xml, but I think it is
unfair to require implementations to support it. Also, having optional
supported types introduces fragmentation. However, we could add
application/xhtml+xml and say that if the implementation does not
handle xhtml, then it may treat it as text/html... but that is
probably just asking for problems(?).

Kind regards,
Marcos Caceres
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 14:54:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:13 UTC