- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 01 Aug 2001 14:25:03 -0400
- To: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org
On 01 Aug 2001 14:07:15 -0400, William F. Hammond wrote: > I'm not saying that "application/xml-dtd" is wrong, but it seems to me > in this case not to be the best choice by the content provider. > > I am inclined to construe the use of the word "should" in RFC 3023, > section 3, para 2, to be for mandating application/xml-dtd over either > text/xml or application/xml but not to preclude fallbacks by a content > provider to text/plain or application/octet-stream, as deemed > appropriate by the content provider. > > Should RFC 3023 be interpreted otherwise? Might the authors of RFC > 3023 be inclined to clarify this? I believe I remember that we would have preferred to say MUST use application/xml-dtd, but were constrained by existing implementations. The best place to ask this is likely: http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/index.html
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 14:23:16 UTC