Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
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, Yes > 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. -- Chris xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... 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@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format