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