- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:31:15 +0100
- To: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
- CC: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org
On Thursday, 20 December, 2001, 16:11:40, Vadim wrote: VP> Still I do not understand (and guess that many other people will not VP> understand) why you have "image/png", "image/gif" but "image/svg+xml" Because RFC 3023 says that all media types that use XML should do that. Since PNG and GIF and JPEG are not written in XML they don't have the +xml addition. VP> I personally find this quite confusing, I don't see why it would be confusing, the SVG 1.0 specification seems very clear and unambiguous on this point. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#MIMEType VP> and making transition from IMG to VP> OBJECT tag rather difficult for people not reading *all* standards available VP> on Internet (and this is just not possible to follow *all published VP> standards*) You seem to be saying that it should be possible to guess MIME types rather than simply looking at the specification. i would have thought that looking at the specification would be easier, beause different peope will guess different ways. VP> I am cc'ing www-SVG list with hope that reasons for such practice can be VP> clarified, and may be added somewehre as FAQ. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#MIMEType http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt Major differences from RFC 2376 are (1) the addition of text/xml- external-parsed-entity, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd, (2) the '+xml' suffix convention (which also updates the RFC 2048 registration process), and (3) the discussion of "utf-16le" and "utf-16be". -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 11:29:21 UTC