Re: [PATCH] mime.types update

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>]

>Marc (I think) raised an objection to a bunch of MIME types listed
>without extensions. But, mime.types already has empty entries, so it
>should either be kept up to date with the current MIME types, or
>the empty entries should be pruned.

I'd be curious to know what the impact on server startup performance
would be with the full list.  But not too curious.  How about if we
distribute a common_mime_types.txt file, complete with comments saying
where to find the IANA registry, and then trim the mime.types file?

>Thoughts? Is there a single source to get registered extensions for
>MIME types without hunting through hundreds of RFCs, etc.?

They added extensions as part of the new registry template.  However,
it is dangerous to assume that an extension is wanted: many people use
weird extensions for text/plain files.  Also, two-letter extensions are
easily confused with language tags.

....Roy

Re: [PATCH] mime.types update

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

On Thu, Sep 24, 1998 at 10:12:18PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I'd be curious to know what the impact on server startup performance
> would be with the full list.  But not too curious.  How about if we
> distribute a common_mime_types.txt file, complete with comments saying
> where to find the IANA registry, and then trim the mime.types file?

Sounds good to me. I'm not quite sure of the benefit of having a
separate file pointing to the IANA registry. Maybe a comment in
mime.types? I don't care too much either way, as long as things stay
consistent.

For kicks, I tried startup of Apache with a big mime.types and
without. No major difference on a Pentium MMX 166.

-- 
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
"This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly.  It should be thrown with
great force." -- Dorothy Parker