New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
application/mathml+xml correct in media types? #38
Comments
I just clicked through to RFC3023 and see that only has |
3023 is just the general |
Right. The +xml suffix is defined by RFC 3023 (and indeed MathML's generic content-type as well). The current list of all registered media types is displayed at the IANA: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml That list would be updated with a different URL once we publish an independent recommendation with the MathML-media-types. |
Thanks for the corrections -- I guess I already knew that... One of my concerns with RFC3023 is that it says
I think it would be a good idea to include the IANA ref/link so that people can easily find that the registration has been completed. |
@NSoiffer hmm RFC can't be changed, only errata or a new one obsoleting the existing one. Turns out 3023 has both https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3023 says 3023 is obsoleted by 7303 that removes mention of mathml as an example +xml type but it has status "proposed" although dated back in 2014. Wikipedia seems to take it as authoritative though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_and_MIME |
This seems like a mess: the old document is official but obsolete and the new document is "proposed" and doesn't mention MathML. I'm not up-to-date on that part of the standards world. Is it reasonable to just mention 3023 since it includes the mentions of some transmission details and immediately after one of the refs say something like: "The MathML media types have been registered with IANA" and give the link in the bibliography? |
We shouldn't expect an RFC to mention MathML. It will be outdated at some point. As for the evolution of 3023, this is discussed currently, but with respect to the possibility of registering new suffix types (json was suggested, several suffixes were discussed). Do we have a reason to try to bring back MathML? I think rather no. |
It was discussed today and decided:
|
- all references to RFC3023 are entirely replaced by references to RFC7303 which is a proposed standard that obsoletes 3023 - the reference to the media-types-list and to the registration procedure are now informative bibliographic references Thus, there is no more the pointing to an old RFC that mentions an old MathML registration. And there is more clarity on the web-pages that show our registrations.
I have now:
I believe that this addresses all issues mentioned here. |
I'm not up to date on media types, so this may be a stupid question...
In https://w3c.github.io/mathml-docs/mathml-media-types/#media-type-choosing, the media types are all
application/mathml... +xml
. Is+html
allowed? If so, seems like that should be mentioned.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: