Re: well-formedness error

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>]

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:24:31 +0900, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)  
> <EB2M-MRT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Both are directly in conflict with MIME RFCs (2046, specifically) and
> > RFC 3023.
>
>
> :-(
>
> > Moreover, there are no reasons to use text/xml for Atom.
>
>
> Many Atom documents will be served with an '.xml' extension. 'xml'  
> extensions gets mapped to 'text/xml' without any 'charset' paramter.

Depends on the Web server. Anyway, don't use the extension "xml" if that 
is a problem.

> That's a big problem. How do you propose we solve this? Should we state  
> that Atom documents MUST NOT be served with the '.xml' extension?

Server behaviour that maps file extension to a content type is an 
implementation detail. The spec should simply state the correct 
content-type ("application/...+xml"), that's it.

> If we recommend '.atom', we have noe idea what Content-Type it will be  
> served as, but can be pretty sure that 'charset' information will still 
> be  missing. The Content-Type would probably me 
> 'application/octet-stream' or  'text/plain'.

As long as it isn't text/*, that's fine.

> I don't know how this can be solved anywhere else than in the core  
> specifications defining these behavours. Do you?

Again, as long as the content isn't served as "text/*", there is no 
problem. Just pick an "application/*" content type and stick with it.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760