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

Re: [www-svg] <none>

From: Braden McDaniel <braden@lnk.com>
Date: 18 Jun 2002 18:41:42 -0400
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1024440103.8361.105.camel@sphinx>

On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 18:33, Jim Ley wrote:
> 
> "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".

How is that disagreement? "application/octet-stream" is a catch-all. Per
HTTP, *anything* that cannot be recognized by the usual (or unusual)
means should be treated as "application/octet-stream".

Braden
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 18:43:46 GMT

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