W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > July 2003

Re: mathml media type registered?

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:17:07 +0100
Message-Id: <200307222117.WAA24242@e3000>
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)

   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   has been superceded by RFC3023.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:


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.

Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 17:17:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:42:07 UTC