Re: [widgets] Content-type sniffing and file extension to MIME mapping

Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Hi Laurens,
> 2008/12/5 Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>:
>> Marcos Caceres schreef:
>>> Ok, hearing no objections, then I propose we bake in the following
>>> file extensions into the spec (we can debate which MIME types to use
>>> after we settle on the extensions!):
>>>
>>> .html
>>> .htm
>>> .css
>>> .gif
>>> .jpeg
>>> .png
>>> .js
>>> .json
>>> .xml
>>> .txt
>>>
>>> The following we should probably bake in too:
>>> .mp3
>>> .swf
>>> .wav
>>> .svg
>>> .ico
>>>
>>> We may bake in the following:
>>> xhtml
>>>
>> Why 'may'? It seems to me that application/xhtml+xml deserves a MIME type
>> mapping just like text/html does. Unless you have a personal preference for
>> text/html and want to perpetuate that in this specification? ;)
>>
> 
> Moi? a personal political agenda to rid the word of
> application/xhtml+xml? never! :P
> 
> Seriously speaking, the list of types is supposed to reflect what the
> working group believes are the core development technologies that
> underpin widgets (for version 1.0, at least). I personally don't have
> an issue with including application/xhtml+xml, but I think it is
> unfair to require implementations to support it. Also, having optional
> supported types introduces fragmentation. However, we could add
> application/xhtml+xml and say that if the implementation does not
> handle xhtml, then it may treat it as text/html... but that is
> probably just asking for problems(?).

Ugh, please don't do that. XHTML treated as HTML is very bad [1]. Why 
not simply allow people to treat it as unsupported, just like i'd 
imagine implementations that don't support wav, svg or json to do.

/ Jonas

[1] http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 17:20:19 UTC