Re: [XMLHttpRequest] update from the editor

On May 14, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:

> On 5/14/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> Personally I don't think lack of registration is a particularly
>> strong reason not to define handling for a particular MIME type.
>
> At the very least, the W3C/IETF liasons should discuss this. It is
> exceedingly bad manners to squat a on parts of a shared namespace,
> such as MIME types or HTML tag names, in the first place. The W3C
> should not reward that behavior by standardizing unregistered types.

Defining particular behavior when a type is seen is not the same as  
standardizing it, in my opinion. Particularly if we had an  
informative note that the type is not recommended for authors.

> I have to wonder why the type was suggested if no one has any usage
> data. If people are using it, this particular type is water under the
> bridge, so I personally feel that the IETF should register and
> document it. The registration procedures are a lot easier now.

"text/xsl" is used very commonly in xml-stylesheet processing  
instructions, since IE recognizes only that type and not the properly  
registered "application/xslt+xml". Example:

<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="bottles.xsl"?>

However, I am not sure how much either of these MIME types is used  
over the wire - most XSLT style sheets that I can find are sent with  
the header "Content-Type: text/xml", or "Content-Type: application/ 
xml" this being apparently the default for the .xsl extension in  
popular http servers.

It does seem to me, given the widespread use in the xml-stylesheet  
PI, that if someone does send this MIME type they probably intend it  
to be processed as XML. But how common it is to do that, is an open  
question.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Monday, 14 May 2007 18:18:19 UTC