W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2007

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] update from the editor

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 13:25:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4640DCB3.8090108@sicking.cc>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>  * text/xsl has been added as a MIME type that causes
>>>    responseXML to return a Document object (if the resource
>>>    can indeed be parsed according to the XML specfications.)
>>>    Again, for compatibility reasons.
>> There is no need for the draft to encourage use of unregistered media
>> types, and there is very little need for the draft to apply non-XML
>> treatment to media types like application/smil which are defined for
>> use with XML documents. I believe it is entirely sufficient and more
>> appropriate to state, for example, "If the internet media type in the
>> Content-Type header indicates the entity body is an XML document, ...".
> Vendors have indicated they would like to have defined what that would 
> mean, which is what the draft now tries to say. This indeed excludes 
> (now obsolete?) MIME types such as application/smil but I don't think 
> that will cause a problem in practice. If it does, I suppose we should 
> get implementation feedback during CR.

I think it's inappropriate to have an absolute list like the spec has 
now. Ideally I'd like to use the wording Bjoern suggested, but if we 
absolutely have to list mimetypes why not do something like:

If there is no content type, or the content type is one that the UA 
considers to be an XML type ... . At least the following types SHOULD[1] 
be considered XML types; application/xml, text/xml, text/xsl and any 
type ending in +xml.

[1] not sure if it should be a MUST or SHOULD requirement.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 20:28:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC