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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:51:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4CE55991.7090302@gmx.de>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
On 18.11.2010 17:40, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Monday, November 8, 2010, 7:59:54 PM, Noah wrote:
>
> NM>  Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>   >>  Which reminds me that it may be time for the TAG to look into the
>   >>  image/sxg+xml issue.
>
> NM>  I assume that's a typo for svg+xml?
>
> NM>  I'd first be curious to hear what some of those responsible for RFC 3023
> NM>  bis think.  I'm copying Chris and Murata-san.  To me, having a +xml type
> NM>  that's sometimes not XML seems bogus, but let's see what others say.
>
> Its *always XML*. It may have been encoded, so the MIME layer will need to decode it. This is why the encoding is given in a separate filed from the content type. The content type does not change.
 > ...

The registration says it might be gzipped. That's the problem we've been 
debating for months now.

> ...
> Similarly, you see the text of this email as plain text, despite the fact that it may have been encoded using quoted-printable or base-64 encoding.
> ...

Yes, but that's an aspect of the *transport*, not of the media type.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2010 16:52:21 GMT

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