[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > In effect, application/xml is a proxy for x-whatever1/whatever2+xml,
> > which by the rules for "x-" (don't interpret it unless you know
> > what you are doing) can't be treated as XML by ignorant processors.
> Right, hence my preference for text/xml and application/foo+xml.
My point was that if whatever1/whatever2+xml has not yet been registered
by IANA, or should not be registered for whatever reason (only used in
private interchange, e.g.), then "application/xml" serves as a proxy
for it. Therefore, the existence of "application/xml" has its uses.
There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein