<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"><html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style></head><body style=" font-family:'DejaVu Sans'; font-size:9pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;">On Friday 19 June 2009, Martin Renold wrote: > hi, > > I did ask this at least twice while doing the file layout specification, > and I proposed "image/openraster" as MIME type, and the answer was silence. > However I see now that Krita uses "image/openraster-archiving" everywhere. > > This leads to confusion with Desktop integration, thumbnail generators, > etc. > > Even if there will be several OpenRaster fileformats, it might make sense > to call the maximum compatibility variant just "image/openraster". Is > there a good reason for not doing that? If so we should change the spec > and adapt the other two implementations ASAP. Well since the file format is called OpenRaster (long-term) Archiving, that's why I used 'image/openraster-archiving' as mimetype. But I don't really care either way. -- Cyrille Berger</body></html>