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

Re: Introduction of media types for XML DTDs

Tim Bray wrote:
> At 08:25 AM 7/17/99 PDT, Larry Masinter wrote:
> >I think there is no justification for "text/xml-dtd" in addition
> >to "application/xml-dtd", because there is no utility at all
> >for an unaware recipient to attempt to display a dtd to a
> >user as if it were text
> Sounds plausible, but empirical evidence is against this position.
> Lots of people read DTDs all the time, and in fact since they are
> usually composed in monotype with all sorts of indentation and
> other pretty-printing apparatus, there is clearly an expectation
> that they be displayed. -Tim

Yes, each to their own; for example Tim (and I) would be happy reading a
DTD in plain text; Ned Freed would be happy reading RFC822 headers in
plain text, and so on and so forth.

And again, in practice, software does not use this "fallback" of
displaying text/unknown as text/plain so software would either know what
to do with a DTD or else it would offer to save it to disk or somesuch.

I would argue against text/xml-dtd only on the grounds of the general
charset tangles with text/*, not on the basis of readability or
otherwise. If I send a DTD to someone in email, its probably because I
expect them to read it. If XML software fetches a DTD, its likely for
machine processing and probably no-one reads it.