On 6/15/07, Thomas Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Using the "experimental" types indicated by 'x.' and 'x-' might also be a possibility in the short term, but is not recommended; a properly registered mime type in the main tree would provide a clear standardisation. Is this important enough to anyone else to warrant an attempt to register a name? Or should we just create a solution specific to our own problem domain?
I expect that submitting something acceptable to the IETF standards track would be rather a lot of work and probably fail. The lack of clear standardisation is an issue regardless, and would have to be resolved *before* submission. For the vendor tree, the guidelines do qualify "well-known producer", "IANA-approved designation of the producer's name", etc. It's not clear that `vnd.markdown` is appropriate. Even if it is, what would it *mean*? Right now we really have `text/prs.gruber.markdown`, `text/prs.fortin.php-markdown-extra` etc. etc. "Markdown" implementations generally implement something close to the former, but there are ambiguous edge-cases so who knows for sure? Proposals for a normative grammar went nowhere. `text/x-markdown` seems a reasonable media-type to encompass the whole murky, underspecified lot of them. Specific extensions/implementations could be indicated with an optional parameter, like: text/x-markdown; profile="http://www.michelf.com/projects/php-markdown/extra/"; That seems better than requiring a separate media type for every extension. YMMV. As an aside, I think the reStructuredText case is one to avoid repeating: it has an IANA registration as `text/prs.fallenstein.rst`, but its highest-profile [user][1] prefers `text/x-rst`. [1]: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0012/ _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
