- From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:43:42 +0900 (JST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi> wrote: > If we get XHTML2 out relatively fast I don't see any problem with using > application/xhtml+xml for it too. Though I'd rather use text/xhtml+xml. The HTML WG first tried to register both 'text/xhtml+xml' and 'application/xhtml+xml', and that was met by very strong resistance at the IETF, so we gave up to register 'text/xhtml+xml'. For background discussion, see "text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml" thread on ietf-xml-mime [1]. > Another way to think this: how about MIME type application/xhtml2 > (without the +xml part). The '+xml' convention was established by RFC 3023, and the TAG finding "Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use" states that "[t]he conventions and framework established by RFC 3023 SHOULD be followed when registering an Internet Media Type for a language that uses XML syntax" [2]. Unless we have very good reason to not follow this TAG finding, that's unlikely to happen. > Yet another idea: is it possible to add another base type to MIME types? > It seems that XML is getting big enough that we could really use > something like xml/xhtml2, xml/smil, xml/svg, xml/x-my-own-format. It was already discussed at ietf-xml-mime and was turned down. See Appendix A.3 "Why not create a new top-level MIME type for XML-based media types?" of RFC 3023 [3]. [1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/threads.html#00612 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime#registration [3] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt Regards, -- Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 07:43:44 UTC