specific mime-types for MathML3 ?

["Martin J. Dürst"]

I agree with what Mark said.

I guess you want multiple clipboard types because you want to give
the receiving application a chance to use either of the two 
representations. For media types, that would correspond to the
situation that you want your user agent to tell you which representation
it prefers, and the server to send one or the other depending on the
request from the user agent. Do you see a possibility for such situations?

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/04/06 6:13, Mark Baker wrote:
> 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.
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp