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

[www-svg] <none>

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:33:11 -0400
Message-ID: <000e01c21718$5bd2f0c0$0d3c70c2@7020CT>
To: <www-svg@w3.org>
624.8362.98.camel@sphinx>
Subject: Re: The 'image/svg+xml' Media Type
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:34:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

"Braden McDaniel" <braden@lnk.com>
> On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 08:40, Jim Ley wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > JL> whatever objections may be found to image/svg+xml .
> > >
> > > Such as?
> >
> > I've not seen a draft... I have reservations about it being in the
image
> > space at all, it seems to fit better in application/*  (are there not
> > risks with non svg aware agents consider image/svg+xml to be binary
data
> > for example?)
>
> I don't think it's reasonable to assume "image" means the representation
> isn't textual. The registry already seems to be populated with some that
> are.

I agree, however RFC 2046 doesn't, 4.2

   Unrecognized subtypes of "image" should at a miniumum be treated as
   "application/octet-stream".

So whilst I don't think that should prevent image/svg+xml, I still think
it's something to consider (equally when svg is mixed with other XML
namespaces xhtml/mathml etc. you would not be using image/* then - so why
have image for this one arrangement?    Dynamic SVG with text wrapping,
xforms etc. I don't think image/svg+xml is "obvious".

Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 18:33:12 GMT

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