On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, 2:08:27 PM, Bjoern wrote: BH> * Bruce Lilly wrote:
First, the proposed text subtypes are inappropriate; text subtypes are reserved for human-readable text content, with or without markup; see RFC 2046 section 4. They are not to be used for arbitrary content which happens to be textual, such as programming and scripting languages; they are reserved for natural language.
BH> That's probably true, but the alternative would be to continue using the BH> unregistered types for several years as the application/* types are much BH> less well-supported. For example, all SVG implementations I am aware of BH> that support relevant scripting,support text/ecmascript (as the relevant BH> specifications suggest) Yes BH> while none support application/ecmascript. because the spec doesn't say to. However, if the preferred and registered media type was application/ecmascript, then the SVG spec could require support for this type.
Second, the draft mentions the proposed types as if they were already registered, which they are not. E.g."use of and support for the media type application/ecmascript is considerably less widespread than of text/ecmascript"
BH> Could you elaborate on this point? I am not quite sure how the draft BH> suggests that these types are registered, in fact, it says that they BH> are not. Maybe you can make a suggestion to rephrase the passages you BH> had in mind? Yes, it doesn't say they are registered. It says which ones are in active use currently.
Fourth, I see no compelling reason to register both "javascript" and "ecmascript" variants;
I do - they are related but different languages. One is defined by an international standards group and one ( a superset) by browser vendor. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group