specific mime-types for MathML3 ?

[Paul Libbrecht]

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