IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
chris at w3.org
Mon Apr 5 02:49:18 BST 1999
David Brownell wrote:
> Chris Lilley wrote:
> > David Brownell wrote:
> > > Chris Lilley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What this RFC appears to do is remove author control over correctly
> > > > labelling the encoding, and ensure that most if not all XML documents
> > > > get incorrectly labelled as US-ASCII.
> > >
> > > Not at all. The best default MIME content type for all web
> > > servers is "application/xml".
> > Why? Do you consider anything not written in US-ASCII as a text
> > document? I think the Unicode Consortium would disagree with you there.
> No, and that's not what I said:
But it is the implication of your argument.
> For a single world-wide default; that's easily understood by overworked,
> underpaid, often untrained sysadmins; and hence is NOT error prone (!!),
> there's a simple answer that's guaranteed to work right everywhere that
> pays more than lip service to industry standards), and hence is "best".
> Namely, that servers report XML documents as "application/xml".
I discussed this in my earlier mail and showed, in particular, that this
is no more or less robust than text/xml; the client still gets given a
label and still either knows what that label is or does not.
> You seem to want to argue about the MIME definition of text as being
> ASCII, if otherwise unqualified.
No, I am arguing specifically about the default for text/xml - the
registration can choose what that default is.
> True, it's dated -- but it really
> does nobody any good to try imposing incompatible changes on such a
> foundational standard. The Web doesn't need that sort of confusion.
Agreed, but that was not what I said.
> > ... in fact, autodetection
> > is a bad thing. I was not suggesting autodetection, quite the converse.
> This seems like a new tangent: "autodetection is a bad thing".
> Are you proposing that the XML specification be revised to eliminate
> the several kinds of autodetection it's got?
No, I was using autodetection in a different sense here, and it was
valuable of Tim Bray to point this out. What the XML spec refers to as
autodetection is not really autodetection. Its just reading a textual
label, the same as reading a MIME charset label.
> > Rather, in the absence of an explicit MIME charset parameter, it should
> > use the encoding declaration. [else default to UTF-8/UTF-16 per spec]
> That is _exactly_ the behavior specified for "application/xml"; now,
> what exactly is your reason for thinking it's not the best default for
> most everyone to use??
Because text files should be transmissible as text; XML is a format for
marked up text.
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev