W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: ISSUE: The application/widget media type has not yet been registered with IANA. This will happen when the specification reaches Candidate Recommendation status.

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:46:27 +0300
Message-ID: <26b395e60909132146v503fb3d3jb67e8a71b40add77@mail.gmail.com>
To: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Cc: public-Webapps@w3.org
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Innovimax SARL<innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wanted to propose that the mediatype should be
>
> "application/widget+zip"
>
> In this case it is clear that it is a zip package (just in case
> another widget package come along with another packaging format :
> gzip, opc, etc...)

This seems like a bad reason for a design decision.

what will probably happen if two widget formats come into existence is
that they'll both be .wdgt and then the mime type will always be wrong
because someone will map .wdgt to application/widget+zip and the file
will be TGZ, and on another system .wdgt will be tagged as
application/widget+tgz but the file will actually be PKZIP.

Either the file format is supported by the widget user agent, or it
isn't. The widget user agent will have to open it up, follow its step
and reach a conclusion. Nothing changes. Determining whether a file is
PKZIP or something else isn't hard.

I'm pretty confident that we're going to squat on application/widget,
a right of being the first w3 group for an area. People will complain
10 years from now that we took the logical mime type, and that's their
right. But the +xml  stuff is a disaster that never went anywhere
useful, so I'd just as soon not adopt it now.
Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 04:47:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT