Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Laurens,
2008/12/5 Laurens Holst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Marcos Caceres schreef:
Ok, hearing no objections, then I propose we bake in the following
file extensions into the spec (we can debate which MIME types to use
after we settle on the extensions!):
.html
.htm
.css
.gif
.jpeg
.png
.js
.json
.xml
.txt
The following we should probably bake in too:
.mp3
.swf
.wav
.svg
.ico
We may bake in the following:
xhtml
Why 'may'? It seems to me that application/xhtml+xml deserves a MIME type
mapping just like text/html does. Unless you have a personal preference for
text/html and want to perpetuate that in this specification? ;)
Moi? a personal political agenda to rid the word of
application/xhtml+xml? never! :P
Seriously speaking, the list of types is supposed to reflect what the
working group believes are the core development technologies that
underpin widgets (for version 1.0, at least). I personally don't have
an issue with including application/xhtml+xml, but I think it is
unfair to require implementations to support it. Also, having optional
supported types introduces fragmentation. However, we could add
application/xhtml+xml and say that if the implementation does not
handle xhtml, then it may treat it as text/html... but that is
probably just asking for problems(?).
Ugh, please don't do that. XHTML treated as HTML is very bad [1]. Why
not simply allow people to treat it as unsupported, just like i'd
imagine implementations that don't support wav, svg or json to do.
/ Jonas
[1] http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
