Re: MathML - missing Media Type Registration template

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> 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:


While yours is more a supertype plus two subtypes

 Chris Lilley          
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 20:43:06 UTC