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

"Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
> JL> but to have left it so long to not even have a draft,
>
> What makes you think we don't have a draft?

I apologise for not using the word published, what a closed working group
has in the privacy of its own members isn't something I can discuss, on
that note, can I ask once again why the SVG working groups charter is a
member only link?

> JL> whatever objections may be found to image/svg+xml .
>
> Such as?

I've not seen a draft... I have reservations about it being in the image
space at all, it seems to fit better in application/*  (are there not
risks with non svg aware agents consider image/svg+xml to be binary data
for example?)

> JL> because they reference "text/ecmascript" a mime type belonging to a
> JL> technology wholly outside their control
>
> Actually, W3C staff are involved in the development of ECMAscript for
> several years now.

Certainly, they contribute, that does not mean they control, and none of
the ECMA TC39 members that I know of (or are listed in the published
minutes) are authors of the SVG spec.

> JL> and highly unlikely to ever be a registered mime-type
>
> On the contrary, its in process of registration.

Draft?  If you're meaning the lapsed Bjorn Hoerhmann draft, that has
lapsed and had significant opposition. (not from me, I'd like to see it
registered.)  I know Waldemar Howatt indicated in Bugzilla that TC39 may
start registration too, but I've not seen this happen.

It did of course include this

5.1 Notes on text/ecmascript

   By the best of the author's knowledge, this Media Type has been
   introduced by the SVG [SVG10] specifications.  It is beeing used
   there and defined as the default value for the 'contentScriptType'
   attribute of the 'svg' element.

I'd again suggest that it was never the place of an SVG working group to
invent a mime-type for ECMAScript.

> JL> as there are strong arguments against it.
>
> "Such as"??

Surely that's off-topic for the list here, bugzilla and the
netscape.public.* newsgroups clearly demonstrate the arguments of the
various JavaScript developers.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27912 has a good argument
against text/ for example.

> JL> That shows a recklessness which is something to worry about.
>
> I think your FUD without arguments to back it up is equally reckless,
> but there we are.

I'm not publishing standards or even recommendations.

Jim.

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 08:42:56 UTC