That would make sense if you want to actually change the HTTP/web
standards and establish new conventions. :)
Me, I don't need to fix the internet right now. The application/foo+xml
convention is pretty well established, and even specified in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt (thanks anarchivist!).
It will work good enough for many purposes, as it does for
application/rss+xml etc. But yeah, this +xml convention it's not as
flexible as you might like, it can't handle everything in the web/xml
world, but fixing that means changing/fixing/establishing new
standards/conventions, and, for the moment, that's 'out of my pay
grade', just getting application/mods+xml and application/marc+xml
registered would be good enough, and in keeping with that RFC and
currently accepted conventions.
Jonathan
Smith,Devon wrote:
Rather than defining new media types, I was thinking it would make more sense to add a
"schema" and/or "namespace" parameter to text/xml or application/xml. Then you
could use those types and append the parameter to indicate the specific structure of the content.
Just a though,
Devon
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Wed 2/4/2009 11:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
If anyone does want to work on it, I'd be happy to help. Maybe I'll
contact clay.
The most immediate and clear need I see is for application/marc+xml and
application/mods.
MADS could be useful, I dunno. Not sure if a seperate one would be
needed for MFHD?
With all the effort on making web-friendly APIs for library
bibliographic control systems (DLF task force, jangle, etc.), having
MIME types for these formats will make everything flow much more
smoothly and clearly.
Of course, even without them being registered, we can use
application/x-marc+xml and application/x-mods right away, which is
probably what I'll do.
Jonathan
Ross Singer wrote:
His point, though, is that you can't tell the format being used until
you open the document and try to negotiate it that way.
So if you think in terms of content-negotiation and a particular
resource is available in EAD, MARC XML and Dubin Core, you have no way
of expressing that.
Jonathan, this has come up before. Ed Summers and I kicked around the
idea of registering these but never got anywhere (mainly because
neither one of us was really interested in writing the RFCs). Clay
Redding might be doing something, as I recall...
-Ross.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Gruber <[email protected]> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be
application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't
say. I don't have any of those files handy.
Ethan
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[email protected]> wrote:
I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS,
MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME
types).
Am I missing something, or is this really so?
Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help
try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards
organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently?
Jonathan
