Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression.


Some advice on the mailing list suggested that the rfc4281 mime-type extensions should be in ma:format, and to delete ma:compression or use it for the case there are no codec parameters, and rename it to "ma:codecs".

However, the group consensus was that it's not a way forward, since extended mime-types are not widely in use. So I would say we are back where we started; with ma:format and ma:compression. Unless we want to rename ma:compression to ma:codec?


Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 07:36:56 UTC