W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: (aside) MIME type

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:55:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4F40D537.4010406@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hallvord@opera.com>, Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 2012-02-18 10:20, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:15:28 +0100, Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
> wrote:
>> WHEN I registered a media-type on the ietf list I have been quite much
>> hit as the first comment "one says media-type nowadays". And indeed
>> MIME is meant for email originally.
>>
>> So I guess politically media-type is a requirement.
>> Should I dig for a formal requirement?
>
> HTML and other specifications use MIME type. Media type is ambiguous
> with CSS.

The correct term IMHO is "(Internet) Media Type", so disambiguation is 
possible.

I don't believe it's helpful to maintain different sets of terminology. 
Use the official term, and when disambiguation is needed, it's trivial 
to do so.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 10:56:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT