Bill de h�ra wrote:
If,
- 6.2 was dropped and probably - the first sentence of the Pace was dropped, - the rest of the 1st para was dropped down into 6.1 - there was some weasel wording about RFC3023 compliance
how would you feel about the rest of it? ...
I think the main issue here is first we say
1) ...SHOULD use application/atom+xml...
...then, if you don't want to...
2) ...SHOULD use application/xml...
...then finally...
3) otherwise MAY use text/xml.
That is a problem in itself. Either we mandate a specific content type or we don't (I think we should). If we mandate one, we should say that behaviour of documents served with a different type is simply undefined.
Note that most of the nasty RFC3023 problems only apply to text/*, in particular I don't see why we would want to RECOMMEND to use a charset parameter on application/* content types.
Best regards, Julian
-- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
