W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2003

RE: Requesting a revision of RFC3023

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:53:30 -0400
Cc: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r02000000-1026-DE57E6A6E9E711D7870D0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

[Should we be cross-posting?  I suspect ietf-xml-mime is probably a
better forum for detailed discussion, but as TAG made the initial
request, maybe cross-posting is appropriate.  Someone please advise.]

FYergeau@alis.com (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>Tim Bray wrote:
>> I agree entirely with Michael and feel that the, er, 
>> textuality of XML is at the centre of everything.
>
>I happen to agree with that.  But please consider that saying 'XML is
>text' is not at all the same thing as saying 'XML is "text/"', as the
>latter is a MIME concept that carries a lot of additional (and
>unfortunate) baggage.

That's my position as well, and a nice way to say it.  While in more
general terms I feel very strongly that XML is text, I don't feel that
XML is text/.

It's unfortunate that text/ doesn't correspond cleanly with text, but
there are lots of good historical reasons for the baggage.  The cost of
that baggage for XML is such that I'm happy to move to application/.
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 10:53:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:20 GMT