Anne van Kesteren wrote:
* text/xsl has been added as a MIME type that causes
responseXML to return a Document object (if the resource
can indeed be parsed according to the XML specfications.)
Again, for compatibility reasons.
There is no need for the draft to encourage use of unregistered media
types, and there is very little need for the draft to apply non-XML
treatment to media types like application/smil which are defined for
use with XML documents. I believe it is entirely sufficient and more
appropriate to state, for example, "If the internet media type in the
Content-Type header indicates the entity body is an XML document, ...".
Vendors have indicated they would like to have defined what that would
mean, which is what the draft now tries to say. This indeed excludes
(now obsolete?) MIME types such as application/smil but I don't think
that will cause a problem in practice. If it does, I suppose we should
get implementation feedback during CR.
I think it's inappropriate to have an absolute list like the spec has
now. Ideally I'd like to use the wording Bjoern suggested, but if we
absolutely have to list mimetypes why not do something like:
If there is no content type, or the content type is one that the UA
considers to be an XML type ... . At least the following types SHOULD[1]
be considered XML types; application/xml, text/xml, text/xsl and any
type ending in +xml.
[1] not sure if it should be a MUST or SHOULD requirement.
/ Jonas
