W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2004

RE: sXBL: Fragment IDs and imports

From: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:56:20 -0500
To: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20041223045619.7DF941496BC@pillage.dreamhost.com>


I think that this is a prime example where "application/svg+xml" is
appropriate. In general, I think that the criteria for this MIME type (as
opposed to "image/svg+xml") should be the inclusion of a script element, for
reason of security and just plain common sense. 

While sXBL templates don't by necessity involve script, most commmon use
case will involve script; even those that don't are performing a
tranformation of data, which is more application than image.

Note that "application/svg+xml" is not a registered MIME type, but hey,
neither is "image/svg+xml". I think both should be registered and
recommended appropriately.


doug . schepers  @ vectoreal.com
www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions.

Elliotte Harold wrote:
| Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
| > If you ignore for a second that the proposed image/svg+xml 
| > registration does not refer to 
| > http://w3.org/TR/SVG11/linking#FragmentIdentifiersSVG
| > this should be well-defined already since sXBL can only be 
| used when 
| > included in SVG 1.2 documents. Things might be less well-defined if 
| > the referenced document is not a conforming image/svg+xml SVG 1.2 
| > document, though.
| The import element is normally intended to point at sXBL 
| documents (if I'm reading the spec right; I might not be). 
| has a MIME media type been chosen for sXBL documents yet? In 
| particular, is it likely to be image/svg+xml or something else?
| --
| Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a 
| Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/
| ref=nosim
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 04:56:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:04 UTC