W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2010

Re: image/svg+xml, was: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:59:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4CD848AA.8060100@arcanedomain.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Julian Reschke wrote:

 > Which reminds me that it may be time for the TAG to look into the
 > image/sxg+xml issue.

I assume that's a typo for svg+xml?

I'd first be curious to hear what some of those responsible for RFC 3023 
bis think.  I'm copying Chris and Murata-san.  To me, having a +xml type 
that's sometimes not XML seems bogus, but let's see what others say.

Noah

On 11/8/2010 8:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 08.11.2010 13:58, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> ...
>> The document doesn't recount how dysfunctional the MIME type registry has
>> been. image/svg+xml, image/jp2 and video/mp4 would be appropriate to
>> investigate as case studies. image/svg+xml *still* isn't in the registry
>> even though deployment has been going on for a decade. image/jp2 and
>> video/mp4 appeared in the registry only after Apple had shipped QuickTime
>> 6 that assumed these types.
>> ...
>
> Which reminds me that it may be time for the TAG to look into the
> image/sxg+xml issue. As far as I can tell, the Designated Experts in the
> IETF are unhappy with the attempt to define a +xml type that in some cases
> is not XML. Indeed I think this is a case of expert review being useful.
>
> Context: around
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01010.html>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 19:00:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:29 GMT