Re: Mime-types

Subject: Re: Mime-types
From: Paul Rohr (
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 18:33:48 CST

At 12:02 PM 2/8/01 -0800, WJCarpenter wrote:
>I think we want to register a MIME type officially. It's a fairly
>painless process, and I'd be happy to own the logistics of doing the
>registration once there is some concensus on what it should be. (So,
>if someone else wants to do the registration stuff, tell me explicitly
>or I'll assume it's on my plate.)
>The controlling document for this is RFC-2048. Here are some
>highlights from that and my own biased experience/observations of the
>process (you get to guess which is which :-)

Thanks, Bill. It's yours.

[ excellent summary omitted ]

>I personally favor "application/vnd.abiword", but let's hear what the
>silverbacks among us think.

Does adding the vnd. prefix really help that much in the IETF process? An
argument could quite easily be made that:

  - there's currently not a "vendor" here, and
  - there aren't likely to be multiple vendor variants of this format.

I always have a bias towards terseness, so I'd prefer to see us just try to
push application/abiword (or, failing consensus on that, text/abiword)
through the process.


PS: While we're at it, are there any other platform-specific filetype
indicators we'd need to reserve besides the suffix and mime type? For
example, I'm thinking I need to dig out an old message about possible Mac
creator types.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 18:49:05 CST