application/xml in ietf-xml-guidelines

Mark Baker <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.xml-mime
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hey,

I just had a look at draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-01, and
saw this;

  "The "application/xml" media type is most appropriate for general
   XML; [...]"

I have three concerns about it.  In descending order of priority;

"application/xml" (and text/xml for that matter) do not have any
specified namespace dispatch behaviour.  That is, if I send some
XHTML as application/xml, the recipient agent doesn't know whether I
want it displayed as XHTML, or in some tree like XML format, nor do
I have any expectation of what the agent might do with it.  According
to RFC 3023, both behaviours are fine, and IMO this makes
"application/xml" less suitable than believed as a generic type.  Here's
the relevant paragraph;

]   An XML document labeled as text/xml or application/xml might contain
]   namespace declarations, stylesheet-linking processing instructions
]   (PIs), schema information, or other declarations that might be used
]   to suggest how the document is to be processed.  For example, a
]   document might have the XHTML namespace and a reference to a CSS
]   stylesheet.  Such a document might be handled by applications that
]   would use this information to dispatch the document for appropriate
]   processing.

(emphasis on "might" in that last sentence)

Also, I believe that "text/xml" should be explicitly not recommended,
due to the text/plain fallback of all text/* types.  It's possible that
text/* has already been abused so badly (text/html being the biggie)
that a text/plain fallback cannot be assumed, but I'll let others
decide if that's actually the case or not.

Lastly, there's no mention of the RFC 3023 "+xml" suffix convention,
which should at least be mentioned as a possibility for use.  I believe
that my first point above highlights a large part of the value of
specific media types (whether +xml is used or not), as the required
dispatch behaviour can be assigned to them.

Plus, FWIW, I'm in the "don't use URNs" camp.

Thanks.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      [email protected]
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.