- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:51:29 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
On 18.11.2010 17:40, Chris Lilley wrote: > On Monday, November 8, 2010, 7:59:54 PM, Noah wrote: > > NM> Julian Reschke wrote: > > >> Which reminds me that it may be time for the TAG to look into the > >> image/sxg+xml issue. > > NM> I assume that's a typo for svg+xml? > > NM> I'd first be curious to hear what some of those responsible for RFC 3023 > NM> bis think. I'm copying Chris and Murata-san. To me, having a +xml type > NM> that's sometimes not XML seems bogus, but let's see what others say. > > Its *always XML*. It may have been encoded, so the MIME layer will need to decode it. This is why the encoding is given in a separate filed from the content type. The content type does not change. > ... The registration says it might be gzipped. That's the problem we've been debating for months now. > ... > Similarly, you see the text of this email as plain text, despite the fact that it may have been encoded using quoted-printable or base-64 encoding. > ... Yes, but that's an aspect of the *transport*, not of the media type. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2010 16:52:21 UTC