- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:43:55 -0400 (EDT)
- To: MJones@NetSilicon.com (Jones, Matthew)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > The server should label the content it sends to the client to > > the best of > > its ability. In this case, I would argue that text/xml is at best a > > cop-out, at worst a lie. > > > > What about text/html, text/sgml, are these acceptable? It would seem > that to be consistant with the proposal text/plain should really be > application/text. text/plain is special, in that it's guaranteed that any MIME processor that advertises its acceptance of any text/* type, can also do text/plain. > I think the question should center around when is > "text/..." acceptable. By the way what is the content-type for MathML? text/html is acknowledged as a mistake. FWIW, the HTML WG has attempted to correct this for XHTML; http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-xhtml-media-reg-01.txt MB
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 15:42:27 UTC