This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author eric.araujo
Recipients eric.araujo, iwd32900, pitrou, r.david.murray, sandro.tosi
Date 2012-02-11.05:55:13
SpamBayes Score 0.00031041098
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
I’ve been one to argue that additions to the mimetypes registry are clearly new features.  Now if two senior devs like you think otherwise, I’m reconsidering.  These additions can’t possibly break code, can they?  So I can agree with a viewpoint that mimetypes should match what the IANA publishes and that adding missing types is a bugfix.  (It’s less disturbing than updating HTMLParser for example, and I agree with that.)  Georg’s inclusion of a registry addition for IIRC 3.2.2 would also indicate RM support for this viewpoint.

About Antoine’s remark: mimetypes already reads mime.types files, so even if our internal registry is not up-to-date the module should know about all types present in /etc/mime.types.
Date User Action Args
2012-02-11 05:55:14eric.araujosetrecipients: + eric.araujo, pitrou, r.david.murray, sandro.tosi, iwd32900
2012-02-11 05:55:14eric.araujosetmessageid: <>
2012-02-11 05:55:13eric.araujolinkissue13952 messages
2012-02-11 05:55:13eric.araujocreate