- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:59:54 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Which reminds me that it may be time for the TAG to look into the > image/sxg+xml issue. I assume that's a typo for svg+xml? I'd first be curious to hear what some of those responsible for RFC 3023 bis think. I'm copying Chris and Murata-san. To me, having a +xml type that's sometimes not XML seems bogus, but let's see what others say. Noah On 11/8/2010 8:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 08.11.2010 13:58, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> ... >> The document doesn't recount how dysfunctional the MIME type registry has >> been. image/svg+xml, image/jp2 and video/mp4 would be appropriate to >> investigate as case studies. image/svg+xml *still* isn't in the registry >> even though deployment has been going on for a decade. image/jp2 and >> video/mp4 appeared in the registry only after Apple had shipped QuickTime >> 6 that assumed these types. >> ... > > Which reminds me that it may be time for the TAG to look into the > image/sxg+xml issue. As far as I can tell, the Designated Experts in the > IETF are unhappy with the attempt to define a +xml type that in some cases > is not XML. Indeed I think this is a case of expert review being useful. > > Context: around > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01010.html> > > Best regards, Julian > >
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 19:00:25 UTC