W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: CR-56: Specify text/xml or application/xml

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:16:23 +0000
To: muraw3c@attglobal.net
Cc: marting@develop.com, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, connolly@w3.org, ricko@gate.sinica.edu.tw
Message-ID: <f5bsnmb8q3c.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
muraw3c@attglobal.net writes:

> From: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
> Subject: CR-56: Specify text/xml or application/xml
> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:34:38 -0000
> 
> > After some discussion the Schema Working Group decided to remain agnostic
> > about the mime type for XML Schema documents and say in the spec that
> > processors must accept text/xml and application/xml but may also accept
> > other mime types ( such as text/plain for example )
> > 
> > It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
> > decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the
> > WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of
> > the W3C.
> 
> Thank you for the message, but I must say that I am not satisfied.
> 
> First, use of text/xml for XML Schema is clearly in conflict with 
> RFC 3023 (Proposed Standard) and MIME RFCs.  The IETF-XML-MIME ML has
> spent a lot of time on this issue, and it is very unfortunate that the
> XML Schema WG simply ignored the consensus.
> 
> Second, use of text/plain for XML Schema is just wrong.
> 
> I would like the director of W3C to be aware of this conflict 
> between IETF and W3C.

To clarify a bit, our decision was based on widely shared experience
of difficulties with server configuration.  It is one thing to say
that XML Schemas are in some intrinsic sense application/xml or
text/xml (sorry, as you know I disagree with the basis for the whole
text/... application/..., but that's a _personal_ disagreement and
_not_ the basis of the WG's decision), it is another thing to require
conforming processors to refuse to process something at the end of a
URL for a schema document because the server at that end delivers it
as text/plain.  We did not feel it would serve any good purpose to
reject the document under such circumstances.

Would it make the decision we took acceptable if it were made clear in
the spec. that XML Schema documents _should_ be served as ???/xml, or
even that XML Schema conformant processors should be capable of being
invoked in 'strict MIME' mode in which they would reject documents
which are _not_ ???/xml?

How is your request consistent with expected advent of
application/xml-schema?  Do you expect that we will rev the XML Schema 
REC (as we hope it will be by then) when this happens?

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 12:16:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:49 GMT