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 17:35:18 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670812050935j18b04019vac0e034001769e12@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> 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(?).
> Ugh, please don't do that. XHTML treated as HTML is very bad [1]. Why not
> simply allow people to treat it as unsupported, just like i'd imagine
> implementations that don't support wav, svg or json to do.

It was mainly because of [1] that I Ieft xhtml out. I don't want to
encourage authors to use xhtml with widgets if it's not going to be
widely supported by widget user agents (no implementer has asked for
xhtml support to date). In Widgets version 2, we might introduce
fallback on <content>, where you can do something like:

   <content src="index.xhtml" type="application/xhtml+xml">
      <cotent src="index.swf" type="whateverTheFlash/typeIs">
         <content src="index.html" type="text/html"/>

Marcos Caceres
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 17:35:55 UTC

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