- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:48:09 PDT
- To: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>, "Jim Davis" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> The IANA content type categorizations have never been particularly > usefull wrt text. According to the rules html should have been > application/html since it is not ascii text... There was never a requirement that text/* be ASCII. On the other hand, 'application/html' is more appropriate for HTML 4.0, because HTML now includes script tags and other processing elements that are not merely text and its annotations but program. I would favor the registration of application/html, however. Let's not compound the error by making it again. > I would recommend text/xml since if the DTD is declared a generic > xml text viewer could well make a decent job at presenting the > content and in general XML is aimed as a text markup language.. This is not a good argument; you could configure your system to view application/xml as well as text/xml. It's more of an issue of security considerations.
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 19:48:23 UTC