[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Text/xml with omitted charset parameter
- From: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:40:16 -0700
At 11:59 AM 27/10/01 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
>> In the meantime, I think I'm going to start recommending the use of
>> application/xml and deprecating the use of text/xml.
>Absolutely; as one poster said, it is one of the most important moves.
>It almost never makes sense to use text/xml, unless your text is cleverly
>arranged to be both WF XML and readable to someone who never heard of XML
Hmm... in practical terms, using text/xml doesn't usually break
things, since most actual software, near as I can tell, cheerfully
ignores the RFC rules and figures out the actual encoding.
Doesn't mean the folks posting on this are wrong. application/xml
is less likely to cause breakage when rules are being followed,
and it's really hard to think of a good reason to use text/xml. In
particular, it seems counter-intuitive to expect J. Random Webserver
to know what encoding it's shipping out in the general case.