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

Re: The 'image/svg+xml' Media Type

From: Braden McDaniel <braden@lnk.com>
Date: 18 Jun 2002 13:41:55 -0400
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Message-Id: <1024422115.8357.84.camel@sphinx>

On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 06:33, Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 12:25:04 AM, Jim wrote:
> 
> 
> JL> "Dave Hodder" <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
> >>    Security considerations:
> >>       (The same as application/xml.)
> 
> JL> Given that conformant dynamic SVG applications must implement ECMAScript
> JL> that being the same is not IMO sufficient.
> 
> Yes, correct. They can also implement any other scripting or
> programming language with dom access.
> 
> >> 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;
> 
> JL> I'd be interested to know why the WG has not already submitted one, we're
> JL> stuck in a situation where on pragmatic grounds we have little choice but
> JL> to have image/svg+xml if we're not going to break existing
> JL> implementations.
> 
> The mime type was defined in the SVG 1.0 Rec. Go ahead and use it.
> Thats not (just) pragmatism, its standards compliance.

Er, no. The W3C is not the authority in this case.

> The necessary paperwork for IANA/IETF is in process, but has a number
> of dependencies including new procedures for registration of W3C media
> types with IANA, currently being put into place; the security section
> as you mentioned, and the charset requirements of application/xml
> which mandate breakage and needs to be fixed.
> 
> JL> The SVG Working groups ease of inventing mime-types is something to worry
> JL> about.
> 
> A 'because' would have been good in that sentence.

It's not just the SVG working group. The W3C has a good history of
establishing MIME types by fiat, or trying to do so. "text/javascript"
in HTML 4.0, proved unregisterable. (At least so far.) Before that
"text/css" was successful. (Should have been "application/css" if the
rules in RFC 2046 were followed.) So this is really just par for the
course.

Because?

Because the W3C simply doesn't have a very good track record when it
comes to establishing sensible media types.

Because the IETF RFC process was designed for this purpose.

*Because the W3C is not the authority for the MIME media type registry.*

Braden
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 13:43:56 GMT

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