[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Mike Brown <mbrown@corp.webb.net>
- To: "'heikki@netscape.com'" <heikki@netscape.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:56:22 -0700
> It appears that there are some ISP that do not have text/xml
> configured into their webservers.
Well, you could tell your ISP that "text/xml" is a registered media type,
per the IANA list at
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types, and
IETF RFC 2376.
However, RFC 2376 is due to be replaced, in part because "text/xml" is a bit
misguided. "application/xml" is more appropriate, per the current proposal.
See http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-xml-09.txt
Also, an HTTP server is under no obligation to assign a particular media
type to files whose names have particular extensions like ".xml". It can be
configured to do so in the absence of a more reliable mechanism, and is in
fact what most web servers do, but the assignments are not mandated by any
standards, and people who run web servers are free to do what they want in
this regard.
After reading the new XML Media Types draft, I am inclined to say that
text/xml is almost never appropriate. It is unfortunate that using
application/xml will induce current-generation HTTP user agents to download
the XML rather than process or render it, but c'est la vie. You shouldn't
assume that what browsers want to do, and what media types they expect,
would be a concern :)
-M.
|
