IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376

[Chris Lilley]

David Brownell wrote:
> 
> MURATA Makoto wrote:
> > "application/xml" is appropriate for some XML data.  On the other
> > hand, if you do not want to miss fallback to text/plain, "text/xml"
> > is the right choice.
> 
> True -- but if there's one basic rule that seems safer
> than another, it's "default to application/xml" rather
> than "assume ASCII and stick to text/xml"!  :-)

But that is only unsafe because this RFC made it so. Your tactic seems
to be to work around the problem with text/xml registration by not using
it; my approach is to get the text/xml registration fixed so it is not
so unsafe.

--
Chris

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)