Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Editorial updates to media types section #488

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

martinthomson
Copy link
Contributor

@martinthomson martinthomson commented Apr 4, 2024

This section was looking a bit dated.

  • We no longer use the term "MIME type" but prefer "media type"
  • Some basic grammatical fixes
  • Updating and adding links
  • Explain what "MIME sniffing" does (because of the above change)
  • Correct a typo in Writ[e]ableStream

Preview | Diff

This section was looking a bit dated.

* We no longer use the term "MIME type" but prefer "media type"
* Some basic grammatical fixes
* Updating and adding links
* Explain what "MIME sniffing" does (because of the above change)
* Correct a typo in `Writ[e]ableStream`
@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Apr 4, 2024

This is wrong. The web platform uses the term MIME type. And in particular we use https://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/#understanding-mime-types.

@martinthomson
Copy link
Contributor Author

It is equally wrong to use the wrong terminology. The IETF uses "media type" for this and consistency with that is more important than avoiding a collision with a use of the same term in a different domain. I don't expect that you will agree, but I think that the right thing to do is acknowledge the collision and rely on context to disambiguate (as we do for many things in language).

@martinthomson
Copy link
Contributor Author

See whatwg/mimesniff#195

@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Dec 4, 2024

It seems pretty bad for the TAG to contradict the entire set of web platform specifications. Decisions like that will certainly make me less inclined to refer to its documents in the future.

A reasonable discussion can be had and perhaps if there's a motivated volunteer a change could be made, but trying to force it through like this is rather meh and uninspiring.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants