On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:28:18PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
depending on what you mean by "dispatch", neither, really, does
any other content-type. in particular, content-types don't specify
anything about presentation or processing; these decisions are up
to the recipient.
We could talk about this again (I'm game!), or I could just reference
the same discussion we held on this topic on www-tag. My position is
very close to Roy's, and I don't have much to add to what he said at
this time.
The posts of his that best reflect my position are;
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0162.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0167.html
Also, I believe that "text/xml" should be explicitly not recommended,
due to the text/plain fallback of all text/* types.
if it's just a fallback behavior, why does it matter much?
actually "display as text" is probably a better fallback for XML
than for HTML - XML generally seems to be more readable than HTML :)
When I was first introduced to this issue while writing RFC 3236, it
was made quite clear to me (on this list, I believe), that text/*
was for content that anybody could easily read. The XML prolog would
scare off most people! And those that make it past that would surely
be overwhelmed by xmlns declarations! 8-)
MB
--
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker(_at_)planetfred(_dot_)com
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com