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: [log in to unmask] > 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > >