- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:39:24 +0200
- To: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- CC: www-math@w3.org
On Monday, March 30, 2009, 10:00:51 PM, Paul wrote: PL> Dear Chris, PL> what a fine point for such a hot debate! We're in the process of doing PL> so. See, for now: PL> http://www.w3.org/Math/Group/wiki/MimeForms PL> at least one will be in the next working draft. Ah, excellent, the best response is that its already in progress. PL> Without being certain the three mime-types we would propose could be: PL> - application/mathml+xml (this one for sure) PL> - application/presentation+mathml+xml PL> - application/content+mathml+xml I believe that the "+" is reserved, so I would suggest - application/mathml+xml (this one for sure) - application/presentation-mathml+xml - application/content-mathml+xml PL> The hot debate is whether 3 mime-types run a risk of being refused by PL> IETF or W3C liaisons at a relatively late stage. Yes, there is that risk. In particular is something that accepts the first one expected to accept the other two (subset?) ones as well? PL> Several of us believe, but have no firm implementation dependencies, PL> that diversification of mime-types may be a good thing provided the PL> consumer and producers do support fully the generic type if one of the PL> parties does not indicate support for the specific types. PL> was diversification discussed in other contexts? The only analogous situation I can think of is X3D which has three media types for three different encodings: model/x3d+xml model/x3d+vrml model/x3d+fastinfoset While yours is more a supertype plus two subtypes -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 20:43:06 UTC