On May 8, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
[1] not sure if it should be a MUST or SHOULD requirement.
It should be a MUST because:
- We want test cases to cover it.
- There's no sensible reason to let a UA to not treat any of the
listed types as XML if it supports XML at all, if at least some
UAs do.
I'm also not sure of the benefit of letting the UA treat arbitrary
other types as XML besides those listed. Modern XML MIME types
should all be following the +xml convention. And clearly for
interoperability we want it to be the case that the UA MUST NOT
treat text/html or text/plain or image/png as XML types. What
types are there where it would be acceptable for the UA to go
either way?
Currently mozilla treat 'text/rdf' as XML in addition to that list,
though I don't feel strongly about including that. Don't know how
much stuff out there with that mimetype. I'll check with rdf people.
I'd rather either have all browsers support it or none, than to have
Mozilla be different. I don't feel strongly about specifically
including it or not.
If we are making the list absolute, I feel weird about including
things like 'text/xsl' and 'text/rdf' as neither of them are real
mimetypes. Is there really a lot that would break if 'text/xsl' was
not included?
No clue. I don't think it's bad to make requirements for unofficial
MIME types, since in theory no one should be using them for either
XML or non-XML, so UA requirements for them can be considered error
handling.
Regards,
Maciej
