Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml

Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> 
> > In effect, application/xml is a proxy for x-whatever1/whatever2+xml,
> > which by the rules for "x-" (don't interpret it unless you know
> > what you are doing) can't be treated as XML by ignorant processors.
> 
> Right, hence my preference for text/xml and application/foo+xml.

My point was that if whatever1/whatever2+xml has not yet been registered
by IANA, or should not be registered for whatever reason (only used in
private interchange, e.g.), then "application/xml" serves as a proxy
for it.  Therefore, the existence of "application/xml" has its uses.

-- 
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein