Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-03-19 Thread Julian Reschke
On 2012-02-21 21:32, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Mark Baker wrote: I wish they did, consistently. See RFC 4288 (just media type) and the registry itself (MIME media type) http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/index.html. Plus they're still routinely referred to as MIME types in many IETF

Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-02-21 Thread Chris Lilley
On Saturday, February 18, 2012, 7:02:45 PM, Anne wrote: AvK On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:47:08 +0100, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net AvK wrote: Well, I think it's the duty of the W3C to use the vocabulary of the people that define this kind of thing. AvK FWIW, the duty of the W3C is to bring the

Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-02-21 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Chris Lilley ch...@w3.org wrote: So just call it 'Internet Media Type' like the IETF and IANA do, and quit quibbling. An informative aside (previously called MIME type) can be added for folks not up to speed. That would be incorrect. It's still called the

Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-02-21 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Mark Baker wrote: I wish they did, consistently. See RFC 4288 (just media type) and the registry itself (MIME media type) http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/index.html. Plus they're still routinely referred to as MIME types in many IETF contexts, including the ietf-types list!

Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-02-19 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.dewrote: The correct term IMHO is (Internet) Media Type, so disambiguation is possible. I don't believe it's helpful to maintain different sets of terminology. Use the official term, and when disambiguation is needed, it's

Re: (aside) MIME type (was Re: Re: [Clipboard] checking if implementation allows reading/writing a given type to the OS clipboard)

2012-02-18 Thread Paul Libbrecht
WHEN I registered a media-type on the ietf list I have been quite much hit as the first comment one says media-type nowadays. And indeed MIME is meant for email originally. So I guess politically media-type is a requirement. Should I dig for a formal requirement? paul Le 18 févr. 2012 à

Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-02-18 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:15:28 +0100, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote: WHEN I registered a media-type on the ietf list I have been quite much hit as the first comment one says media-type nowadays. And indeed MIME is meant for email originally. So I guess politically media-type is a

Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-02-18 Thread Paul Libbrecht
WHEN I registered a media-type on the ietf list I have been quite much hit as the first comment one says media-type sorry for the capitalization nowadays. And indeed MIME is meant for email originally. So I guess politically media-type is a requirement. Should I dig for a formal

Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-02-18 Thread Hallvord R. M. Steen
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:47:08 +0100, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote: WHEN I registered a media-type on the ietf list I have been quite much hit as the first comment one says media-type nowadays. Well, on one hand it's probably polite and correct to let the group that defines a

Re: (aside) MIME type

2012-02-18 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:47:08 +0100, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote: Well, I think it's the duty of the W3C to use the vocabulary of the people that define this kind of thing. FWIW, the duty of the W3C is to bring the web to its full potential, not quibble over terminology. --