|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of MIME was copied or moved into Media type with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:MIME.|
Any non-W3C source for the "Internet media type" designation?
In the Wikipedia article, it says "MIME also was defined in 1992 by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)", but I read the RFC 2046 document, which is all about MIME, also linked to from this article and it is dated November 1996. What is the explanation to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcin7 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I've heard MIME types called "media types" a lot, and they're certainly used on the Internet, but apart from the W3C document cited in the heading, I've rarely seen them referred to by the triplet "Internet media type". In fact, "Media type" is a link to a section within the "MIME" article.
I've been working with the web and web-relate programming for years. I've never heard them called 'Internet Media Types'. Usually 'MIME types' and occasionally 'content types'. The acronym 'MIME' is often spelt 'mime' and seems to largely have lost its association with its original meaning. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. Whatever the origin of this misunderstanding, it may have been made worse by poor phrasing in section 1.1 of RFC 5147, which begins Internet Media Types (often referred to "MIME types")... before continuing to only use the name media types. An unambiguous phrasing would have been Media types on the internet.... This article should have been named "Media type" since the beginning. I've moved it. — Scott • talk 13:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I came across this article and got really confused that it's called "Media type" instead of "Mime type". While I've heard it referred to as "content types" (not as much as "mime type" though), I've never heard "media types". I understand why the article would be called "media type" since that is, nowadays, the official name, but I don't get the claim that "they became known as media types when it became apparent that their usage had expanded to protocols which did not relate specifically to mail." Google Trends suggests that "mime type" is the more popular search term while a quick Stack Overflow search shows that "media type" is used a little more than "mime type", but not siginificantly. This page should start with "a media type, MIME type or mime type" or something similar. TotempaaltJ (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you say, especially the last sentence. However, "mime" is a misspelling. It must not appear at all. (Just how many times have I seen people writing "nsa", "usa" and "linux"? Lots.) Also, Google Trends is case-insensitive!
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
"Some of the more notable media types used on the Web are listed below"
What exactly makes these types rather than any others notable? Also vnd, x and x-pkcs are not "types", they are subtype prefixes. This list needs some cleanup. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 10:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Rationale of type, subtype?
The article needs a better explanation of the rationale by which file formats are assigned to types and subtypes. For instance, why is ogg both
audio/ogg? Related questions: what is the rationale of placing a format under the
application/ type? It seems that type application serves as a catch-all...
Similarly, the given rationale of
text/ seems equally suspect. Just because a .csv, .xml, or .vcard file is written in a text format does not mean that it a human can read it. My reading of RFC 2046 Sec 3 suggests that XML, CSV and vcard never should have been placed under
text/ (emphasis mine).
(1) text -- textual information. The subtype "plain" in particular indicates plain text containing no formatting commands or directives of any sort. Plain text is intended to be displayed "as-is". No special software is required to get the full meaning of the text, aside from support for the indicated character set. Other subtypes are to be used for enriched text in forms where application software may enhance the appearance of the text, but such software must not be required in order to get the general idea of the content. Possible subtypes of "text" thus include any word processor format that can be read without resorting to software that understands the format. In particular, formats that employ embeddded binary formatting information are not considered directly readable. A very simple and portable subtype, "richtext", was defined in RFC 1341, with a further revision in RFC 1896 under the name "enriched".
Recommend removing list of types
As is noted at the top of the section, a complete list of internet media types is available directly from the source: http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml
However, in the article, after this mention, there is a partial list of types. This list is incomplete and could be potentially incorrect if at some point in time a type is depreciated. I see no reason why "some" media types should be listed here. Recommend removing the list and directing people to Iana.org to view the up-to-date and complete list if they wish to get that data. David Condrey log talk 01:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note here that you did, and that your reasoning was sound. — Scott • talk 13:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)