On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Daniel Kinzler <daniel(a)brightbyte.de>wrote;wrote:
On 25.04.2012 19:10, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Gabriel Wicke
<wicke(a)wikidev.net
<mailto:wicke@wikidev.net>> wrote:
On 04/25/2012 06:42 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> It's a human-readable text format, so I'd advocate for
text/x-wiki. I
don't
know where or how the application/x-wiki came about.
This was pretty much the reason why I picked it for action=raw back
then.
I like Daniel's idea to use something more specific to MediaWiki
though.
Maybe text/x-mediawiki?
I'm down with that. :)
Well... changing the mime type now might break a bunch of clients that
rely on
it, no? At least in cases where it's actually used in a ContentType header.
For practical reasons, I suggest to stay with application/x-wiki, and make
action=raw use that too, unless ctype=text/x-wiki. then it should use
text/x-wiki in the ContentType header too.
The only one of these that I'm familiar with is text/x-wiki.
How exactly is application/x-wiki used, and by what?
AjaxResponse sounds like one of the obsolete things we want to kill and
make sure is replaced with the API.
StreamFile is unlikely to be streaming wikitext on a regular basis, as we
don't keep wikitext in files... it seems to be a random thing stuck in as a
backup for "unknown" file types to try to avoid triggering the type
detection that IE does for application/octet-stream.
I'm not sure what OutputPage would be doing outputting wikitext directly at
any time... ah, this is for the Universal Edit Button <link> in the header.
That points to an HTML page, and technically probably shouldn't use
application/x-wiki. It uses it to say "this is a wiki edit button', and I
think got obsoleted by the <link> after it which uses rel=edit instead.
RawPage does in fact return raw wikitext, for which we use text/x-wiki.
-- brion