- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:17:07 +0100
- To: hammond@csc.albany.edu
- CC: www-math@w3.org
> Since that's a password-protected URI, may I be so bold as to > inquire here why an xhtml namespace should require a mimetype? Sorry Max pointed at the soon (I hope:-) to be published next draft but the same text is the public draft of mathml 2nd edition and in the mathml 2 rec. the text (I cut this from the REC version, I don't think it's changed) says MIME types [RFC2045], [RFC2046] offer an alternative strategy that can also be used in current user agents to invoke a MathML renderer. This is primarily useful when referencing separate files containing MathML markup from an EMBED or OBJECT element. [RFC3023] assigns MathML the MIME type application/mathml+xml. The W3C Math Working Group recommends the standard file extension .mml used for browser registry. In MathML 1.0, text/mathml was given as the suggested MIME type. This has been superceded by RFC3023. The RFC is at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt note however that while that RFC sets up a general scheme for xml related mime types (xhtml+xml, mathml+xml, svg+xml) it doesn't actually register any of them. Hence Dan C's question. We are planning to register this, just to avoid the confusion of having an RFC give this as an example when it isn't really registered. As you indicate though, it turns out that for namespace aware processors having mime types for individual xml languages probably isn't that useful, but it can't do any harm, and could for example allow you to set up your mime type applications so that mathml files went straight to some mathml-aware application rather than a generic XMl tool. David
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 17:17:27 UTC