[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Bad News on IE6 XML Support

• From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@m...>
• To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
• Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 22:08:30 -0700

>The new MIME type for XSLT will by the way be application/xml+xslt, not
>text/xml+xslt, at least this is outlined in section 8.17 of RFC 3023,

Thanks for the correction.  Actually, it looks like the convention is
application/xslt+xml, and the '+xml' part is optional.  In other words,
section 8.17 just seems to be saying that whatever mime type for XSLT
eventually gets registered should also stick a +xml after it (but also
the version without +xml would be accepted).  In fact, the spec makes it
clear that application/xslt is just an example, since no type is yet
registered.  I may be totally blind, but it looks to me like section
8.17 is not at all negating the possibility that text/xsl would be the
standard mime type, and is also not saying that it would be wrong to
leave off the '+xml'.  I checked at ftp.isi.edu and didn't see either
mime type in the listing.  But maybe there are other more "official"
ways of telling what mime types are kosher or not.  I admit I am no
expert on mime types, but it seems that application/xslt+xml would be
preferable as a "best practice" to text/xml or application/xml.  But
then that '+' seems like some sort of trick which parsers can choose to
treat differently, so in that case text/xsl+xml would be better since it
would mean that text/xsl could continue to work.

Anyway, sorry if I am missing something, but as far as I can tell there
is not even a media type for XSLT yet (and the RFC says that the media
type in the example SHOULD NOT be used until a real media type gets
registered).  And again, I may be missing something major, but why
wouldn't text/xsl+xml be the natural thing that got registered, since
that is the de-facto standard now anyway?  Please accept my very sincere
apologies if I am stepping on some ground that has been hashed over and
is contentious; I am just curious?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
    • From: Dave Winer <dave@u...>
  • Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
  • RE: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
• Next by Date: [ANN] Future of web services (October 2 panel discussion)
• Previous by thread: RE: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
• Next by thread: Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread