W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Content type of TR/ruby/xhtml-ruby-1.mod

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: 01 Aug 2001 14:25:03 -0400
To: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org
Message-Id: <996690310.2778.82.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On 01 Aug 2001 14:07:15 -0400, William F. Hammond wrote:
> I'm not saying that "application/xml-dtd" is wrong, but it seems to me
> in this case not to be the best choice by the content provider.
> 
> I am inclined to construe the use of the word "should" in RFC 3023,
> section 3, para 2, to be for mandating application/xml-dtd over either
> text/xml or application/xml but not to preclude fallbacks by a content
> provider to text/plain or application/octet-stream, as deemed
> appropriate by the content provider.
> 
> Should RFC 3023 be interpreted otherwise?  Might the authors of RFC
> 3023 be inclined to clarify this?

I believe I remember that we would have preferred to say MUST use
application/xml-dtd, but were constrained by existing implementations.

The best place to ask this is likely:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/index.html
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 14:23:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:49 GMT