Markus,
On 2004 Jun 1 , at 18.23, Markus Dolensky wrote:
> application/votable+xml
I for one agree, with the qualification below.
> For an explanation why to use "+" as a delimiter, why to append "+xml"
> to the subtype and what would happen if one decided to choose a
> different solution see the discussion and examples in "XML Media
> Types" (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt).
The general RFC for registering MIME types is RFC 2048 <http://www.imc.org/rfc2048>, which is being updated at present (see <http://www.imc.org/draft-freed-mime-p4>). The process is long-winded (as the FITS community is finding out), but doesn't look massively hard.
I think we should embark on the standardisation process, on the assumption that the VO is more than a brief fashion. Specifically, we don't have to wait until VOTable is `finished', as there's no version information in the MIME type.
Until that point, however, we should use the `Experimental' MIME prefix, and should use
x-application/votable+xml
Only registered types should use the version without leading `x-'
> The only irritating bit is that I'm unable to find a mime type list
> that is newer than 3 years. Moreover, IETF does not have a top level
> link to MIME on their home page which is a surprise since supposedly
> IETF is in charge of it(?). This makes we wonder whether either MIME
> is obsolete in some way or maybe I was looking in the wrong place?
The canonical list of MIME types is
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/>. It's not mentioned in
RFC2048, but is in the draft update -- I agree the IANA and the IETF
should have a more prominent link to it.
I believe Microsoft will tell you that MIME is obsolete, and that their DIME is the very thing to replace it with. This view is... not widely held.
I hope this helps,
Norman
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- Norman Gray http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/ Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UKnorman-at-astro.gla.ac.uk Received on 2004-06-01Z19:58:30