- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 02:53:18 +0100
- To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- CC: Web style list <www-style@w3.org>
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. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 20:55:08 UTC