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

RE: application/xml vs text/xml

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:48:09 PDT
To: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>, "Jim Davis" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002401bdb9b9$026f9f80$15d0000d@copper-208.parc.xerox.com>
> 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...

There was never a requirement that text/* be ASCII. On the other hand,
'application/html' is more appropriate for HTML 4.0, because HTML
now includes script tags and other processing elements that are not
merely text and its annotations but program.
I would favor the registration of application/html, however. Let's
not compound the error by making it again.

> 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..

This is not a good argument; you could configure your system to view
application/xml as well as text/xml. It's more of an issue of security
considerations.
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 19:48:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:47 GMT