Re: Accept: Client Profile

Tony Sanders <>
Message-id: <9308141911.AA22232@austin.BSDI.COM>
Subject: Re: Accept: Client Profile 
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 14 Aug 93 07:45:57 PDT.
Organization: Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 14:11:32 -0500
From: Tony Sanders <>
Status: RO
> 1. application/latex, troff-*, etc. should be text/* instead.  Something
> should be supertype text when it can be treated as text/plain by default.
> Note that this doesn't apply to Postcript, dvi, etc.
Is MIME considering them as text/* types?

> 2. I like your archive supertype but if we go with it we should make sure
> it gets into MIME proper.  Note that creating a new supertype is much
> harder than creating a new subtype.
If it's useful MIME will adopt it.  Of course, the MIME types always
override whatever we define (e.g., they defined application/zip, so
I removed it from the archive type).

> 3. The non-standard types should all have "x-" in front of them.
Consider these HTTP types and not MIME types.

> I can't decide whether to resist the use of all those new types; we can't
Who gives a hoot, let the market sort it out.  The types should be defined
for those that need them.

> Should we consider the danger of leaving image/cmu-raster (surely
> sunraster is more ubiquitous) and archive/sv4cpio in the list?
I'm happy to add sunraster, what do you want me to call it?