W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re[2]: svg degrades to gif/jpg

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:31:15 +0100
Message-ID: <19735308890.20011220143115@w3.org>
To: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
CC: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org
On Thursday, 20 December, 2001, 16:11:40, Vadim wrote:

VP> Still I do not understand (and guess that many other people will not 
VP> understand) why you have "image/png", "image/gif" but "image/svg+xml"

Because RFC 3023 says that all media types that use XML should do
that. Since PNG and GIF and JPEG are not written in XML they don't
have the +xml addition.

VP> I personally find this quite confusing,

I don't see why it would be confusing, the SVG 1.0 specification seems
very clear and unambiguous on this point.
VP> and making transition from IMG to
VP> OBJECT tag rather difficult for people not reading *all* standards available 
VP> on Internet (and this is just not possible to follow *all published 
VP> standards*)

You seem to be saying that it should be possible to guess MIME types
rather than simply looking at the specification. i would have thought
that looking at the specification would be easier, beause different
peope will guess different ways.

VP> I am cc'ing www-SVG list with hope that reasons for such practice can be 
VP> clarified, and may be added somewehre as FAQ.


  Major differences from RFC 2376 are (1) the addition of text/xml-
  external-parsed-entity, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and
  application/xml-dtd, (2) the '+xml' suffix convention (which also
  updates the RFC 2048 registration process), and (3) the discussion of
  "utf-16le" and "utf-16be".
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 11:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC