LDraw MIME types

[Roland Melkert]

I noticed LDraw hasn't have very 'official' mimetypes yet. It's only mentioned on a page from the old site:

http://www.ldraw.org/reference/specs/mimetypes.shtml

And the mpd one is different from the one the Linux version of LDView defines. This while the LDView package (I assume) is more common then the suggested Apache settings.

I think we sould therefore make the LDView ones official and maybe add one for the dat's although .dat is a very commen extension.

This gives:

ldr -> "application/x-ldraw"
mpd -> "application/x-multipart-ldraw"

Or should we go with a single mime type e.g. "text/x-ldraw" as the extension alone does not determine the nature of a LDraw file anyway. This would break the LDView packages though but I think it's the only software out there using it at the moment.

edit: Might be better to go just with "application/x-ldraw" for all extensions and 'depreciate' the "application/x-multipart-ldraw" one.

[Orion Pobursky]

Can you point me to a reason for needing these? Otherwise, I agree with your edit comment.

[Roland Melkert]

Can you point me to a reason for needing these?

I think it should be part of http://www.ldraw.org/article/218.html in order to make sure all software uses/supports the same type.

One big reason is the webserver onel. For example: try to open a mpd link, it will open in a new tab on most sites. With a valid mime type it would offer to download / can be opened with etc. And on Linux mime types are used for application association so there it is especially important all programs are aware of the same string.

[Milan Vančura]

edit: Might be better to go just with "application/x-ldraw" for all extensions and 'depreciate' the "application/x-multipart-ldraw" one.

I support this. I do not know about any usecase when it makes sense to set different utilities for working with .ldr and .mpd. Then, having two MIME types means only one thing: we'd need to double everything (every setting) with no added value.

[Steffen]

I also agree with that 'edit' suggestion

[Michael Heidemann]

Is there anybody that can incorporate this to the documents? Do we need to address this to the LSB?