W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2002

The 'image/svg+xml' Media Type

From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:22:04 +0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020617202204.A137@dmh.org.uk>

Hi,

Given that no MIME media type for SVG has been defined through an RFC,
here are my own thoughts on what such a registration could look like:

    MIME media type name:       image
    MIME subtype name:          svg+xml
    Required parameters:        none
    Optional parameters:

      charset
          This parameter would have identical semantics to the charset
          parameter of the "application/xml" media type.

      profile
          This parameter would provide additional information for
          content negotiation purposes.  (Is it SVG 1.0, SVG Tiny 3.1,
          etc.)

   Encoding considerations:
      (The same as application/xml.)

   Security considerations:
      (The same as application/xml.)

The least obvious part, which I think needs the most thought, is how the
theoretical 'profile' parameter could work.  I can think of three
potential schemes:

  1) It could contain the URL of an official W3C SYSTEM identifier, in a
     similiar style to the profile attribute within RFC 3236 (the
     'application/xhtml+xml' registration).  For example, SVG Basic 1.1
     could be:

     Accept: image/svg+xml;
       profile="http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg-basic11.dtd"

  2) As an alternative it could contain the value of the SVG document's
     baseProfile attribute.  For example:

     Accept: image/svg+xml; profile="basic"

  3) As example 2, but with an additional of a 'version' parameter:

     Accept: image/svg+xml; profile="basic"; version="1.1"

     (By having both 'profile' and 'version' parameters we are
     conveying as much information as example 1 above; example 2 falls
     short by not conveying this version information.)

Do these ideas make sense?  Which type of 'profile' parameter seems the
most logical?

I'd be interested to know whether the W3C has any intention of
submitting an Internet-Draft for this media type in the near future; if
not would anyone be unhappy about it happening independently of the W3C?
;o)

Thanks

Dave
Received on Monday, 17 June 2002 15:19:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:22 GMT