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 21:37:04 -0400
To: "Jim Davis" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001bdb9c8$3985a6e0$bf011712@games>

> At 01:05 PM 7/27/98 PDT, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >
> > ... According to the rules HTML should have been 
> >application/html since it is not ascii text...
> I am puzzled why you say that.  RFC 2046 section 4.1 says, of the text
> media type 

RFC 2046 was written long after the decision was made. Tim was told to
use application/html on various grounds but did not see any reason to
break the installed base.

As Larry points out HTML 4.0 now has imperative scripting gunk thrown
in, the point is however that once you step beyond flat ascii plaintext
people start saying application/*. 

The real problem is that the taxonomic classification is not quite as
appropriate as it might appear. 

Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 21:40:20 UTC

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