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: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 14:32:46 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010305135836.0297fc28@espanola.com>
To: muraw3c@attglobal.net
Cc: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, marting@develop.com, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, connolly@w3.org, ricko@gate.sinica.edu.tw
At 2001-01-24 09:35, muraw3c@attglobal.net wrote:
...
 > Neither RFC 3023 nor the XML recommendation says anything about the
 > behavior of the XML processor when the media type is not an XML
 > media type.  The XML Schema spec can simply follow this tradition.

I believe this is now common ground among us.

 > On the other hand, "application/xml" should be mentioned as an
 > appropriate media type.

It will certainly be mentioned as an appropriate media type.

 >> 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

 > They should be served as application/xml.  (If this sentence is
 > added, I will withdraw my request to the W3C director.

I think this should be acceptable to the XML Schema WG.  Personally,
I would prefer that the XML Schema spec be as agnostic as possible on
this issue, and so I would prefer a statement other than a bald

   XML Schema documents should be served as MIME type aplication/xml.

Would it be acceptable to you if the XML Schema spec said something
like the following?

   [RFC 3023] recommends that XML Schemas should be served as
   MIME type application/xml.

This would seem to me preferable, because it would refer people to the
right place for authoritative discussion of MIME types for XML.
We would need to add an informative reference to RFC 3023.

The problem is that by searching for the word 'schema' I don't
actually find a place where RFC 3023 says this explicitly -- one
occurrence of the word is in the sentence "An XML document labeled as
text/xml or application/xml might contain ... schema information, or
other declarations that might be used to suggest how the document is
to be processed," which does not seem to suggest that XML Schema
documents should not be served as text/xml.  The other occurrence
is in a definition of validation.

Perhaps a better alternative would be something like this?

   [RFC 3023] recommends that XML-encoded material should be served as
   MIME type application/xml, unless the XML source code is readable by
   casual users (in which case it should be served as text/xml).  Many
   observers believe that XML Schema documents fall into this category
   and should therefore be served as application/xml.

I suspect that you are relying on the rule that text/xml should be
preferred if the content is readable by casual users, but if you can
point me to a more conclusive passage, it would be useful to me.

 > Hope this helps.

It does indeed.  Many thanks!  Please let us know whether either of
the two alternate wordings I propose are acceptable to you.

Michael Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 16:31:21 GMT

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