Tonico Strasser wrote: > Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb: > >> Tonico Strasser wrote: >> >>> Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb: >>> >>> >>>> If we make XML the default mode, I don't see how it would impact IE >>>> very >>>> much. >>> >>> >>> IE would try to dowload HTML pages not served as text/html. Pages in XML >>> mode should be served as XML not text/html. >> >> >> >> I think that last sentence is a bit strong and IMO even plain wrong. >> ZPT's mode of operation has nothing to do with how it's served in an >> HTTP response. > > > I thougth this is part of the XML spec. No? > > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/07/21/dive.html > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt
The RFC you cite here introduces five (!) new media types for XML, two of which are text/xml and application/xml. So that's already ambiguous. Apart from that, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt introduces application/xhtml+xml, also a valid XML content type, for XHTML in particular (of course, I bet that IE won't accept it so pragmatism wins over RFC-compliance here and we have to stick with text/html). As for other XML dialects, there are even content types that aren't text/* or applicaton/* and still deal with XML, e.g. image/svg+xml for SVG (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/mimereg.html). The point of all this is that text/xml just isn't enough. It's a good fallback, but it's not enough, especially including serving HTML. From that I conclude that the "should" in your sentence above is wrong. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list [email protected] Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
