W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: [SVGMobile12] requiredFormats psuedo MIME types

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:21:19 +0200
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s7bwltt264w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:51:51 +0200, T Rowley <tor@cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>> We are not encouraging use of non-registered types. On the other hand,
>> we were trying to disambiguate cases where the media type by itself is
>> ambiguous (eg some of the application/* types).

That seems like a fine goal, but the draft is pretty vague about that. As  
far as I know it is undefined in the draft what  
`list-of-format-definitions` actually is. From the definitions it is  
unclear whether or not the colon is part of the image(<media-type)  
contract. It is unclear what a <media-type> is. It is not clear what  
font(truetype), font(type1) and font(opentype) actually represent. What  
does it mean for `font(image/svg+xml)` to return true? Or for  
`script(image/svg+xml)`? One of the examples states that `image/svg+xml,`  
(note the comma) must return true by compliant viewers. Is that  
intentional? What it means for a namespace to be understood.

It's entirely clear what happens with:

  requiredFormats="image/svg+xml foo/bar"

... given that the application does not support foo/bar.

http://www.w3.org/mid/41eb29e0.75649406@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de seems to  
have a list of related questions which was e-mailed in Januari 2005. As  
far as I can tell from the list archives (searching for topic) there has  
been never a formal reply from the SVG Working Group to that e-mail. I  
hope all the other comments on the first Last Call have been replied to  
and addressed in the second Last Call document if necessary...


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 1 April 2006 12:21:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:34 GMT