- From: Braden McDaniel <braden@lnk.com>
- Date: 18 Jun 2002 18:41:42 -0400
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 18:33, Jim Ley wrote: > > "Braden McDaniel" <braden@lnk.com> > > On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 08:40, Jim Ley wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > 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?) > > > > I don't think it's reasonable to assume "image" means the representation > > isn't textual. The registry already seems to be populated with some that > > are. > > I agree, however RFC 2046 doesn't, 4.2 > > Unrecognized subtypes of "image" should at a miniumum be treated as > "application/octet-stream". How is that disagreement? "application/octet-stream" is a catch-all. Per HTTP, *anything* that cannot be recognized by the usual (or unusual) means should be treated as "application/octet-stream". Braden
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 18:43:46 UTC