- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:35:39 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On May 8, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On May 8, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> >>> [1] not sure if it should be a MUST or SHOULD requirement. >> It should be a MUST because: >> - We want test cases to cover it. >> - There's no sensible reason to let a UA to not treat any of the >> listed types as XML if it supports XML at all, if at least some >> UAs do. >> I'm also not sure of the benefit of letting the UA treat arbitrary >> other types as XML besides those listed. Modern XML MIME types >> should all be following the +xml convention. And clearly for >> interoperability we want it to be the case that the UA MUST NOT >> treat text/html or text/plain or image/png as XML types. What >> types are there where it would be acceptable for the UA to go >> either way? > > Currently mozilla treat 'text/rdf' as XML in addition to that list, > though I don't feel strongly about including that. Don't know how > much stuff out there with that mimetype. I'll check with rdf people. I'd rather either have all browsers support it or none, than to have Mozilla be different. I don't feel strongly about specifically including it or not. > If we are making the list absolute, I feel weird about including > things like 'text/xsl' and 'text/rdf' as neither of them are real > mimetypes. Is there really a lot that would break if 'text/xsl' was > not included? No clue. I don't think it's bad to make requirements for unofficial MIME types, since in theory no one should be using them for either XML or non-XML, so UA requirements for them can be considered error handling. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 22:35:57 UTC