Re: ISSUE: The application/widget media type has not yet been registered with IANA. This will happen when the specification reaches Candidate Recommendation status.

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:46 AM, timeless <timeless@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Innovimax SARL<innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wanted to propose that the mediatype should be
>>
>> "application/widget+zip"
>>
>> In this case it is clear that it is a zip package (just in case
>> another widget package come along with another packaging format :
>> gzip, opc, etc...)
>
> This seems like a bad reason for a design decision.
>
> what will probably happen if two widget formats come into existence is
> that they'll both be .wdgt and then the mime type will always be wrong
> because someone will map .wdgt to application/widget+zip and the file
> will be TGZ, and on another system .wdgt will be tagged as
> application/widget+tgz but the file will actually be PKZIP.
>
> Either the file format is supported by the widget user agent, or it
> isn't. The widget user agent will have to open it up, follow its step
> and reach a conclusion. Nothing changes. Determining whether a file is
> PKZIP or something else isn't hard.
>
> I'm pretty confident that we're going to squat on application/widget,
> a right of being the first w3 group for an area. People will complain
> 10 years from now that we took the logical mime type, and that's their
> right. But the +xml  stuff is a disaster that never went anywhere
> useful, so I'd just as soon not adopt it now.

I agree with Josh. Lets leave it as is.


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 14:49:02 UTC