Wasn't "text/xml" deprecated?! And instead you are suppose to use "application/xml" or "application/???+xml", etc. (If I remember correctly, this was done because of text-transcoders and conflicts between "text types" specified with HTTP and XML. I think I read this on Mark Pilgrim's blog... but I couldn't find the article.)
Cool, I just checked, and it looks like Internet Explorer shows the XML source if you send application/xml as the content type. That's what was stopping me. I was under the impression that text/xml was the only way to get that to work. application/foobar+xml doesn't, AFAIK, though.
So in that case I have no objection to publishing as application/xml. Cheers, Phil _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
