Revisiting mime-types and file extensions

Sam Angove sam at
Fri Jun 15 21:38:29 EDT 2007

On 6/16/07, Thomas Nichols <nichols7 at> wrote:


> This looks a workable option for us (and is in fact what we were doing

> last time we played with this). The 'profile' idea is also interesting

> -- though for consistency with other mime-types would this be the

> optimal syntax? With embedded space/newline and semi-colon?

The newline wasn't intentional, darned email, but yes, like Content-Type.

content := "Content-Type" ":" type "/" subtype *(";" parameter)

I suggested the parameter because something similar is specified for
[`application/xhtml+xml` RFC][rfc3236].


> If the profile is not sufficient precisely to identify the supported

> language syntax, I'm not sure it would have much practical value for us.

Of course, `text/x-markdown+extra` won't give you that either.

The primary advantage of a URL is that it provides a discovery
mechanism. It also makes explicit that different "profiles" are all in
the Markdown family, which a shared `x-markdown` prefix doesn't.

Anyway, Michel Fortin is probably right, and the whole scheme is too
complicated to bother with.

Never mind. :)

More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list