RE: application/xml vs text/xml

> WebDAV replies are never intended for direct human viewing, right?  Is
> there a reason then that the WebDAV spec uses text/xml and does not even
> mention application/xml?  It seems to me that the latter is closer to the
> intended use of WebDAV XML (as opposed to XML markup that's 
> embedded in HTML).
> 
> If this is right, the spec should say that a WebDAV server MUST 
> accept both
> application/xml and text/xml, and MUST generate application/xml.
> 
> Would this be good, aside from the fact that it would require change to
> some existing softwares?

The IANA content type categorizations have never been particularly
usefull wrt text. According to the rules html should have been 
application/html since it is not ascii text...

I would recommend text/xml since if the DTD is declared a generic
xml text viewer could well make a decent job at presenting the
content and in general XML is aimed as a text markup language..

	Phill