- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:12:21 +0100
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, 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>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
On 18.11.2010 20:01, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > ... >> That's no problem. >> >> However it *is* a problem to claim that .svgz files have the type >> "image/svg+xml". They don't. Feed them into a recipient that expects >> XML and see it fail. > > 'claim'? Claim how? Who has claimed this? How might someone claim > this in any substantive way, except by failing to include the above > Content-Encoding header in a message containing a gzipped SVG > document. . . The media type registration claims it. If that's not the intent, can we please clarify it? > OK, I've now followed the link [1] in your original message, and it > seems very odd to me. The passage Mark Nottingham quotes, modulo the > correction of Content-Transfer-Encoding to Content-Encoding, seems > entirely satisfactory to me. What is the Content-Encoding header [2] > _for_, if not precisely for this case: > > "The Content-Encoding entity-header field is used as a modifier to > the media-type. When present, its value indicates what additional > content codings have been applied to the entity-body, and thus what > decoding mechanisms must be applied in order to obtain the > media-type referenced by the Content-Type header field." Yes. That is true for *any* media type, so it's totally unclear why it needs to be repeated. The registration for SVH however says that it's ok to sniff: "In addition, gzip compressed content is readily recognised by the initial byte sequence as described in [RFC1952] section 2.3.1." That's at least how I read it. > I've included Mark and Alexey in this conversation --- Alexey, I think > we particularly need to hear from you about what is wrong with a > message with the headers quoted above. > ... I recommend that we have this conversation on the media types mailing list. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2010 19:13:04 UTC