specific mime-types for MathML3 ?

[Mark Baker]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Paul Libbrecht <paul at activemath.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hello mime-types experts,

We call them media types now 8-)

> Here are my questions:
> - do you see any danger in having three mime-types if we have the provision
> above?

I wouldn't use the word "danger", but I personally don't see much
value in having three media types based on your explanation and the
spec itself.  The only reason I could see for needing another one (not
necessarily two more) would be if there were agents which would only
be implementing one of the two forms of MathML document and, most
importantly, were unable to understand documents which contained the
form they didn't implement.  But that doesn' t appear to be the case.

> - is there a chance our registration for three mime-types is rejected for
> other reasons?

The use of "+" is incorrect in a couple of ways.  First, that the
convention is used to indicate the possibility of generic processing
by indication of a generic format, such as XML or JSON; "mathml" isn't
such a generic format.  Second, no meaning has yet been assigned to
the use of multiple "+" segments.
"application/mathml-presentation+xml" would be better.

Mark.