Re: Internet Media Types [resend to public-bpwg-comments]

Le jeudi 27 juillet 2006 à 18:03 -0700, Susan Lesch a écrit :
> Congratulations on your First Public Working Draft [1] for mobileOK. A
> comment for 2.2:
> 
>    "If the document's MIME type, as specified in the HTTP response
>    Content-Type header, is not application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml or
>    application/xhtml+wml , FAIL"

I believe the latter is a typo; it should ready application/xhtml+xml
(which is registered)

> These are called Internet Media Types (rather than MIME I think) and are
> not registered. Are you planning to register them?

RFC 2048 says that Media Types in the vendor tree (identified by the vnd
prefix) don't require registration, as far as I understand:
        2.1.2.  Vendor Tree
        
           The vendor tree is used for media types associated with commercially
           available products.  "Vendor" or "producer" are construed as
           equivalent and very broadly in this context.
        
           A registration may be placed in the vendor tree by anyone who has
           need to interchange files associated with the particular product.
           However, the registration formally belongs to the vendor or
           organization producing the software or file format.  Changes to the
           specification will be made at their request, as discussed in
           subsequent sections.
        
           Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading
           facet "vnd.".  That may be followed, at the discretion of the
           registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer
           (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the
           producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product
           designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures).
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2048.txt

Whether application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml (which is the Media Type
recommended by OMA for XHTML Mobile profile [4]) should stay in the list
of accepted media types is probably worth discussing, that said.

> I am not an expert but am checking to see if mobileOK requires XHTML
> Basic and Basic requires application/xhtml+xml.

Indeed (or application/xml, actually).

> In case the references help, the topic came up in March of 2004 on two
> different W3C lists [2,3].

Dom

> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobileOK-20060712/
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2004Mar/0001
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Mar/0000
4. http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/affiliates/wap/wap-277-xhtmlmp-20011029-a.pdf

Received on Friday, 28 July 2006 09:03:42 UTC