On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:28 PM Jiankang Yao <ya...@cnnic.cn> wrote:
> > > *From:* Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > *Date:* 2025-02-28 00:02 > *To:* resnick <resn...@episteme.net>; Jiankang Yao <ya...@cnnic.cn>; Arnt > Gulbrandsen <a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no> > *CC:* Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com>; Bron Gondwana > <br...@fastmailteam.com>; extra-ads <extra-...@ietf.org>; extra-chairs > <extra-cha...@ietf.org>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; > auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > *Subject:* Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9755 <draft-ietf-extra-6855bis-04> for > your review > > > >> 5) <!--[rfced] In general in RFCs, the term "MIME type" > >> should be "media type". Please review whether these updates > >> convey the intended meaning. > >> > >> a new MIME type -> a new media type > >> > >> the MIME structure of a message > >> -> the media type of the body of a message > >> --> > > > > My understanding is that "MIME type" is better than "media type" in the > document. > > Why is "MIME type" better than "media type"? The former is the older name for the same thing; the latter is the preferred term. -MSK
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
