- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:33:18 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org, "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 12:25:04 AM, Jim wrote: JL> "Dave Hodder" <dmh@dmh.org.uk> >> Security considerations: >> (The same as application/xml.) JL> Given that conformant dynamic SVG applications must implement ECMAScript JL> that being the same is not IMO sufficient. Yes, correct. They can also implement any other scripting or programming language with dom access. >> I'd be interested to know whether the W3C has any intention of >> submitting an Internet-Draft for this media type in the near future; JL> I'd be interested to know why the WG has not already submitted one, we're JL> stuck in a situation where on pragmatic grounds we have little choice but JL> to have image/svg+xml if we're not going to break existing JL> implementations. The mime type was defined in the SVG 1.0 Rec. Go ahead and use it. Thats not (just) pragmatism, its standards compliance. The necessary paperwork for IANA/IETF is in process, but has a number of dependencies including new procedures for registration of W3C media types with IANA, currently being put into place; the security section as you mentioned, and the charset requirements of application/xml which mandate breakage and needs to be fixed. JL> The SVG Working groups ease of inventing mime-types is something to worry JL> about. A 'because' would have been good in that sentence. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 06:35:34 UTC