[ietf-types] Additional comments on image/svg+xml

[Ron Wilson]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 18.11.2010 17:30, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> You seem to be assuming that, in a MIME environment, they would see the
>> compressed stuff. The point of labelling it is that it can be recognised,
>> decompressed, and handed off to the 'generic application'.
>
> But in that case, the gzipped version really is *not* an instance of
> image/svg+xml.
>
> Why can't you just simply state the recommendation for "svgz" *outside* the
> description of the media type?

This is certainly consistant with my understanding of the use of
"Transfer-encoding:". "svg" would be the official extension for
"image/svg+xml" and the only one that applications should have to deal
with. Any other extension used would be an implementation detail of
the service providing/hosting the SVG resource.

As a related side point, if there really is a need for a type to cover
gzip'ed SVG, I think that "application/vnd.svg" would be more
appropriated.