Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
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/x-doocbook+sgml (found via [Google:], note the doubled "o"!)
- application/xml+docbook (well, that's a possibility too - an application of XML!)
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?