W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: application/xml vs text/xml

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:05:49 -0400
To: "Jim Davis" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <025501bdb999$f3557200$0100000a@goedel>

> 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..

Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 16:09:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:17 UTC