- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:14:20 +0100
- To: public-webapps@w3.org, "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org>
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 03:56:31 +0100, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote: > In reading through the current draft of XMLHttpRequest [1] I see a > consistent use of the term 'MIME type' instead of 'Media Type' as > defined by RFC 2046 [2]. RFC 2046 does not define the term 'MIME > type' and only refers to 'MIME Media Type' once within the RFC > document. Otherwise, it would seem the proper term is 'Media Type'. > > Further, the 'Content-Type' header used to type the MIME entity as > described as: > > "The Content-Type field is used to specify the nature of the data in > the body of a MIME entity, by giving media type and subtype > identifiers, and by providing auxiliary information that may be > required for certain media types." > > Again, it would seem the value is a 'Media Type' and not a 'MIME > type'. I think it would be preferred for this specification and RFC > 2046 agreed on the data type name for the value of the Content-Type > header. As the terminology section states I am using MIME type per HTML5. The reasons why that specification uses that term are described here: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/infrastructure.html#mime-type If you disagree with those reasons you can file a bug against HTML5 and get the HTML WG to look at it. To make it not too much of a Kafkaesque process I am willing to provide assistance if you wish to do that and need help. > [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/ > [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2046 -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 14:14:56 UTC