[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: well-formedness error




Mark Baker wrote:


On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:09:34AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:


I presume you mean "application/atom+xml", since that's what was being discussed as a requirement? Thanks--that's reassuring.


No, I meant "application/xml".

As I see it:

1) Use of "application/xml" should be accompanied by atom:label and an XML processing instruction involving a stylesheet.

2) Use of "application/atom+xml" should not be accompanied by an atom:lable or an XML processing instruction involving a stylesheet.



Big +1. It's good to see somebody on top of the semantic issues[1] with application/xml.

[1] "An XML document labeled as text/xml or application/xml might
contain namespace declarations, stylesheet-linking processing
instructions (PIs), schema information, or other declarations that
might be used to suggest how the document is to be processed. For
example, a document might have the XHTML namespace and a reference to a
CSS stylesheet. Such a document *might* be handled by applications that
would use this information to dispatch the document for appropriate
processing." (emphasis mine)
  -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt




Am I missing something here - is there any strong reason (beyond a few extra bytes) for not including the PI and atom:info with "application/atom+xml"?
If there's nothing configured to pick up on that type, it might well end up in a browser anyway.


Cheers,
Danny.

--

Raw
http://dannyayers.com