- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:19:50 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:12:59 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > There's a big difference between example pages claiming that authors > > should set the type="" attribute to text/xsl, and servers actually using > > that MIME type in their Content-Type headers, let along in the > > Content-Type headers of content used from XMLHttpRequest. > > Sure, as I pointed out for text/xsl in > http://www.w3.org/mid/op.s8ihwrtt64w2qv@id-c0020.lan ... My statement was just meant to correct the misuse of results of a Google search to establish the use of a MIME type, not correct the misinterpretation of IE's behaviour. > > I'd recomend only looking at text/xml, application/xml, and */*+xml. > > But also others as suggested in > http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0604260515341.21459@dhalsim.dreamhost.com That message was not suggesting that we should support others. It was just saying that whatever we _do_ support, it must be listed explicitly and not left up to user agents. > and in > http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0604260530490.21459@dhalsim.dreamhost.com > ..? I like the text/html suggestion for a bit. My comment above was only meant to list the XML types. I do indeed think that we should also support text/html as well, but not as an XML type. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 14:20:11 UTC