Is there a specific use case that caused
the issue of DITA mime type(s) to be raised again now?
At PTC/Arbortext we talked about having an
official mine type for DITA objects about a year ago, but we’ve been able
to get by without it quite nicely so far.
If we do try to get some sort of official
mine type, I’d like to find a way that we could tell more than just that
we have a DITA document. Ideally I’d like to know in order:
1.
If we have a DITA
document
2.
If we have a DITA map,
DITA topic, DITA ditabase, or ditaval document
3.
What type of DITA
document we have (topic, concept, reference, task, glossentry, map, bookmap,
learningMap, …)
I’d need to go back and refresh
myself on the details of mime type syntax, but I vaguely remember that there
were ways to provide more detailed information without creating completely new
mine types.
I agree with Paul that having an official
mine type may not provide much additional benefit and so I’m not pushing
for this myself, but if we do go forward I’d like to be able to get
additional information beyond just DITA or not DITA.
And even if we don’t go forward with
an official mine type, I’d like to somehow encourage CMS implementers to
include this level of detail in the CMS metadata associated with a DITA object
so that someone can use or get this information as they search or browse
without having to open each DITA object each time.
-Jeff
From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:59
AM
To:
Subject: RE: [dita] mime type for
DITA?
While a mime type
can define a fragment identifier syntax, there is always the question of what
tools will recognize and implement that fragment identifier syntax.
Presumably, in the DITA case, it will just be DITA tools which already
recognize the syntax. So defining a mime type specific fragment identifier
syntax does allow us to say our href values are true and official URIs, but it
doesn't change too much in practice. (I don't see the argument as either
strongly for or against whether we should define a dita mime type.)
Using
application/dita+xml to allow tools to recognize dita content sounds like a
benefit. Again, though, you have to ask what tools will actually access the
mime type and recognize--and do something special--with the dita mime
type. The answer again is just dita tools which already recognize dita
content. So the only benefit might be making it a bit easier for such
tools to know they have dita without looking inside the content.
But note that one
can get a mime type only from mime headers, and one has mime headers for a file
in only rare cases in practice (and half the time when you do have them, they
are wrong or incomplete). The rest of the time, tools guess mime type by
looking at the file extension or inspecting the content, and this can and is
already done.
So defining a
mime type probably has only a minor benefit in practice.
I would counsel
against trying to define multiple mime types. Given the small benefit of
mime types in general, if we try to get too complicated here, we'll pretty much
guarantee that there will never be two fully interoperable
implementations, and I don't see the benefit of multiple mime types.
paul
From: Erik
Hennum [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, 2008 March 27
18:47
To:
Subject: [dita] mime type for
DITA?
Hi,
Technical Committee:
Returning to an old question, should the committee take a position with respect
to a mime type for DITA?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200408/msg00055.html
A DITA mime type would let tools declare and recognize DITA content in HTTP
headers, email, and so on without actually inspecting the content. As I
understand Paul's note, a mime type would also provide a basis for defining the
DITA reference syntax within URI standards:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200705/msg00040.html
One might expect DITA to have a mime type similar to application/dita+xml
following ordinary practice for XML vocabularies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_and_MIME
DITA is an architecture, however, not a vocabulary. Section A.14 in the relevant
RFC suggests that an extensible architecture should prepend qualification
levels:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3023.txt
Applied to DITA, that would seem to call for a mime type that separates the
declaration of the vocabulary (as defined by the shell for the document type)
from the DITA architecture from the XML architecture.
An application that recognizes a document type can process any document that
generalizes to a valid instance of the recognized document type. Because of
shell pluggability, however, the mime type alone can't reasonably provide a
basis for determining the compatibility of a document type accepted by an
application with the document type of the supplied document. (The mime type for
the document type would have to encode the modules and ancestor modules
included by the shell, effectively cramming the value of the domains attribute
into an identifier.)
A reasonable compromise might be for the mime type to identify only the base
vocabulary. (That compromise also acknowledges the impracticality of
registering all DITA shells as mime types.) Applications would have to inspect
the domains attribute in the content for more specific evaluation of
acceptability. This approach avoids creating a legacy that would have to be
accomodated if future work solves the document type compatibility problem some
other way.
In summary, this approach would introduce two fundamental mime types for topics
and maps:
application/topic+dita+xml
application/map+dita+xml
Because the DITA values file isn't specializable (doesn't provide the
architecture attributes), their mime types should identify the XML vocabulary
but not the DITA architecture:
application/ditaval+xml
Hoping that's useful,
Erik Hennum
