- From: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:56:20 -0500
- To: <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi- I think that this is a prime example where "application/svg+xml" is appropriate. In general, I think that the criteria for this MIME type (as opposed to "image/svg+xml") should be the inclusion of a script element, for reason of security and just plain common sense. While sXBL templates don't by necessity involve script, most commmon use case will involve script; even those that don't are performing a tranformation of data, which is more application than image. Note that "application/svg+xml" is not a registered MIME type, but hey, neither is "image/svg+xml". I think both should be registered and recommended appropriately. Regards- Doug doug . schepers @ vectoreal.com www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions. Elliotte Harold wrote: | | | Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: | | | > If you ignore for a second that the proposed image/svg+xml | > registration does not refer to | > http://w3.org/TR/SVG11/linking#FragmentIdentifiersSVG | > this should be well-defined already since sXBL can only be | used when | > included in SVG 1.2 documents. Things might be less well-defined if | > the referenced document is not a conforming image/svg+xml SVG 1.2 | > document, though. | | The import element is normally intended to point at sXBL | documents (if I'm reading the spec right; I might not be). | has a MIME media type been chosen for sXBL documents yet? In | particular, is it likely to be image/svg+xml or something else? | | -- | Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a | Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! | http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ | ref=nosim |
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 04:56:23 UTC