Norman Walsh edited this page Oct 1, 2015 · 1 revision

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?

Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.