Re: The 'image/svg+xml' Media Type

"Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 12:25:04 AM, Jim wrote:
> >> 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 W3 publish standards? I thought they published recommendations...  I
appreciate that it can be time consuming and I appreciate that there
were/are dependancies on other registrations, but to have left it so long
to not even have a draft, that the web is now stuck with image/svg+xml
whatever objections may be found to image/svg+xml .

> 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.

In CERT Advisory CA-2000-02, it says you must serve text/html with a
charset for security reasons - I realise XML has available defaults, but
does it fully solve the problem?

> 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.

because they reference "text/ecmascript" a mime type belonging to a
technology wholly outside their control and highly unlikely to ever be a
registered mime-type as there are strong arguments against it.  That
shows a recklessness which is  something to worry about.

Jim.

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 06:45:33 UTC