- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:53:22 +0000
- 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 -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 14:54:10 UTC