DocBookMimeType

Norman Walsh edited this page Oct 1, 2015 · 1 revision
Clone this wiki locally

Which is it?

  • text/xml (read: DocBook is not used widely enough to justify a mime type on its own [RFC:2046])
  • text/x-docbook (if DocBook is too unimportant to register [RFC:2048])
  • text/docbook (too simple?)
  • text/docbook+xml
  • text/xml+docbook
  • text/x-doocbook+sgml (found via [Google:], note the doubled "o"!)
  • x-text/x-docbook
  • text/xml-docbook
  • text/x-xml-docbook
  • text/x-xml+docbook
  • text/x-docbook+xml
  • application/xml+docbook (well, that's a possibility too - an application of XML!)
  • text/vnd.oasis.docbook

Google:ErfurtWiki:MarioSalzer: See, there are unlimited possibilities! But where does the DocBookDocumentation mention even one of them? Really, I searched hardly.

NormanWalsh adds: The DocBook Technical Committee has never registered a MIME type for DocBook, but probably should. There are significant character set issues with the "text/*" set of MIME types, therefore I suggest that DocBook should be application/docbook+xml and will see about registering that for the next version.

Murata: The IETF tree is just too difficult. How about application/vnd.oasis.docbook+xml?