Re[2]: svg degrades to gif/jpg

On Thursday, 20 December, 2001, 16:11:40, Vadim wrote:


VP> Still I do not understand (and guess that many other people will not 
VP> understand) why you have "image/png", "image/gif" but "image/svg+xml"

Because RFC 3023 says that all media types that use XML should do
that. Since PNG and GIF and JPEG are not written in XML they don't
have the +xml addition.

VP> I personally find this quite confusing,

I don't see why it would be confusing, the SVG 1.0 specification seems
very clear and unambiguous on this point.
 http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#MIMEType
 
VP> and making transition from IMG to
VP> OBJECT tag rather difficult for people not reading *all* standards available 
VP> on Internet (and this is just not possible to follow *all published 
VP> standards*)

You seem to be saying that it should be possible to guess MIME types
rather than simply looking at the specification. i would have thought
that looking at the specification would be easier, beause different
peope will guess different ways.

VP> I am cc'ing www-SVG list with hope that reasons for such practice can be 
VP> clarified, and may be added somewehre as FAQ.

 http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#MIMEType
 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt

  Major differences from RFC 2376 are (1) the addition of text/xml-
  external-parsed-entity, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and
  application/xml-dtd, (2) the '+xml' suffix convention (which also
  updates the RFC 2048 registration process), and (3) the discussion of
  "utf-16le" and "utf-16be".
 
-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 11:29:22 UTC