XML MIME types

[Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@raleigh.ibm.com>]

Any objection to these additions to mime.types? It would be nice to
sneak these into 1.3.2.

# From RFC 2376
# application/xml also seems possible
text/xml        xml dtd

# Reliable source says these are already in use
text/xml        ent
application/xml xsl

-- 
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk@raleigh.ibm.com
IBM Apache Development Team
Research Triangle Park, NC

Re: XML MIME types

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 
> Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, there are a few PRs on the subject. What should the rule be for
> > including a MIME type/extension pair in the Apache mime.types file?
> > Just whatever I think sounds good, or something more strict?
> 
> Every time I've suggested bringing mime.types up to date, the
> noise has generally been 'don't bother unless there's a
> canonical file extension.'  However, I still think it's a
> good idea notwithstanding the nay-saying.

I'm +1 for including the types, even if we don't know the extension.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author     http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/

WE'RE RECRUITING! http://www.aldigital.co.uk/

Re: XML MIME types

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On Sun, 6 Sep 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah, there are a few PRs on the subject. What should the rule be for
> > including a MIME type/extension pair in the Apache mime.types file?
> > Just whatever I think sounds good, or something more strict?
> 
> Every time I've suggested bringing mime.types up to date, the
> noise has generally been 'don't bother unless there's a
> canonical file extension.'  However, I still think it's a
> good idea notwithstanding the nay-saying.

Erm... there is a big difference betweeen just adding a huge number of
mime types that don't do anything except take space and adding things that
have common extensions.

I don't think anyone has any problem with adding common extensions, but
there isn't a canonical source for them.

Re: XML MIME types

[Rodent of Unusual Size <co...@Apache.Org>]

Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> 
> Yeah, there are a few PRs on the subject. What should the rule be for
> including a MIME type/extension pair in the Apache mime.types file?
> Just whatever I think sounds good, or something more strict?

Every time I've suggested bringing mime.types up to date, the
noise has generally been 'don't bother unless there's a
canonical file extension.'  However, I still think it's a
good idea notwithstanding the nay-saying.

#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member         <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>

Re: XML MIME types

[Jim Gettys <jg...@pa.dec.com>]

> Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
> From: Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>
> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 01:39:43 -0500
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: XML MIME types
> -----
> On Fri, Sep 04, 1998 at 12:48:45PM -0700, Jim Gettys wrote:
> > As to xsl, it isn't there (you should probably poke the xsl folks to
> > register it...).
> 
> I don't know much about what's going on with them, but apparently they
> aren't far enough along to register.  You're not supposed to register
> a MIME type until you have an actual completed document to base it on,
> right?
> 
>
Dunno; I have enough trouble keeping track of protocol stuff...
But they are getting close, I'd say: the W3C home page has a headline:

"W3C Issues First Public Draft of XSL 1.0"

So I'd guess it will be before Xmas...
				- Jim

Re: XML MIME types

[Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>]

On Fri, Sep 04, 1998 at 12:48:45PM -0700, Jim Gettys wrote:
> As to xsl, it isn't there (you should probably poke the xsl folks to
> register it...).

I don't know much about what's going on with them, but apparently they
aren't far enough along to register.  You're not supposed to register
a MIME type until you have an actual completed document to base it on,
right?

> While you are at it, you might go looking for other things that should
> be added.

Yeah, there are a few PRs on the subject. What should the rule be for
including a MIME type/extension pair in the Apache mime.types file?
Just whatever I think sounds good, or something more strict?

-- 
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
"How can one live in this age and not be curious?" -- Charles Krauthammer

Re: XML MIME types

[Jim Gettys <jg...@pa.dec.com>]

A quick check of the IANA registry shows that text/xml and application/xml
have indeed been registered.

(see: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types).

As to xsl, it isn't there (you should probably poke the xsl folks to
register it...).

While you are at it, you might go looking for other things that should
be added.
			- Jim