specific mime-types for MathML3 ?
Paul Libbrecht
paul at activemath.org
Sat Apr 4 13:30:05 CEST 2009
Hello mime-types experts,
in the W3C Math working group, a hot debate is happening about the
types of content.
MathML defines two types of content in its specification, MathML-
content and MathML-presentation. They are both specified in the same
spec which also offers ways to combine them.
In the future chapter 6 (draft at http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/draft-spec/chapter6.html
), one can see that the need arises to qualify MathML objects of the
two different types with a different name on the clipboard and this is
agreed upon in the group.
What is not agreed upon is whether the final spec should include a
form for just one generic mime-type or three so as to allow
negotiation similar to the clipboard:
- application/presentation+mathml+xml
- application/content+mathml+xml
- application/mathml+xml
The two first are the specific types, the last one is the generic
type; our registration would append the form(s) at RFC 4288 within a
normative part in the MathML spec.
It's pretty clear we shall specify that the generic type should always
be offered if a specific type is offered and, similarly, the generic
type should be delivered if it's not clear that the specific type is
supported.
We do not have yet a big set of scenarios that depend on a content-
negotiation where the knowledge of a specific mime-type is the sole
enabler instead of "just accepting any MathML and try to do your best
with it".
Here are my questions:
- do you see any danger in having three mime-types if we have the
provision above?
- is there a chance our registration for three mime-types is rejected
for other reasons?
thanks in advance
paul
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2203 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/attachments/20090404/6c27964d/attachment.bin
More information about the Ietf-types
mailing list