Mark Baker wrote:
I just had a look at draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-01, and
saw this;
"The "application/xml" media type is most appropriate for general
XML; [...]"
Thanks Mark for spotting this. As time goes on, I am having more and
more difficulty believing in the notion of "general XML" - I have not
seen and am less and less able to imagine a scenario in which one
party sends another a message in "general XML".
Also, I believe that "text/xml" should be explicitly not recommended,
Yes. I have been arguing in the TAG context that we should take
another whack at RFC 3023 to say that "text/xml" SHOULD NOT or maybe
even MUST NOT be used - the baggage carried by "text/" seems never
useful and often harmful in the case of XML. -Tim
Lastly, there's no mention of the RFC 3023 "+xml" suffix convention,
which should at least be mentioned as a possibility for use.
Yep.
Plus, FWIW, I'm in the "don't use URNs" camp.
Me too. -Tim