Re: MIME types for fonts (was Re: SVG fonts embeddable in XHTML-documents?)

On Monday, 18 March, 2002, 02:46:42, Etan wrote:

EW> Chris Lilley wrote on 12 March 2002:

>> The trouble is, there are no font/* MIME
>> types and [it is] a lot of trouble to get a new tree.

EW> I wonder why the 'application' MIME type is unsuitable, 
EW> given approporiate subtypes.  The existing 
EW> 'application/font-tdpfr' (for Bitstream's Portable Font 
EW> Resource) subtype is one example.  I would think that 
EW> other subtypes would be easy to define and easy to register 
EW> under the 'application' type.  If font subtypes do not fit in the 
EW> IETF tree, the vendor tree is ready and willing.

EW> What would we gain by the addition of a 'font' MIME type?

The theory was content negotiation, at the time. In practice there is
little utility to saying

Accept: font/*

so yes, the application tree would be fine.


Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 20:55:08 UTC