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

Re: (aside) MIME type

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:09:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CALcoZiqpxXx0Uu-a+ZXDptRE556oSkCD3GrhzPbFCqjZjGNHTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2012, 7:02:45 PM, Anne wrote:
> AvK> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:47:08 +0100, Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
> AvK> wrote:
>>> Well, I think it's the duty of the W3C to use the vocabulary of the
>>> people that define this kind of thing.
> AvK> FWIW, the duty of the W3C is to bring the web to its full potential, not
> AvK> quibble over terminology.
> So just call it 'Internet Media Type' like the IETF and IANA do, and quit quibbling.

I wish they did, consistently. See RFC 4288 (just "media type") and
the registry itself ("MIME media type")
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/index.html>.  Plus
they're still routinely referred to as "MIME types" in many IETF
contexts, including the ietf-types list!

In short, I believe the name change was a failure.

My suggestion would be to use "MIME type (aka Internet media type)"
initially, but stick with "MIME type" thereafter.

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:10:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:38 UTC