Re: MathML - missing Media Type Registration template

Dear Chris,

what a fine point for such a hot debate! We're in the process of doing  
so. See, for now:
    http://www.w3.org/Math/Group/wiki/MimeForms
at least one will be in the next working draft.

Without being certain the three mime-types we would propose could be:
- application/mathml+xml (this one for sure)
- application/presentation+mathml+xml
- application/content+mathml+xml
The hot debate is whether 3 mime-types run a risk of being refused by  
IETF or W3C liaisons at a relatively late stage.

Several of us believe, but have no firm implementation dependencies,  
that diversification of mime-types may be a good thing provided the  
consumer and producers do support fully the generic type if one of the  
parties does not indicate support for the specific types.

was diversification discussed in other contexts?

thanks in advance

paul


Le 30-mars-09 à 20:27, Chris Lilley a écrit :

> Hello www-math,
>
> Looking at the MathML 2.0 Recommendation [1] and the MathML 3.0  
> draft [2] I noticed that an appendix with a Media Type Registration  
> template [3] was missing.
>
> Please add such an appendix to the next publication of MathML 3. An  
> example may be seen at [4]. Also, please note that RFC 3023 is in  
> the course of being revised (current draft at [5]) and you may wish  
> to take these revisions into account.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-MathML2-20031021/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-MathML3-20081117/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/mimereg.html
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03.html