improve xml mime type description #38539
Open
+75
−75
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
Content:HTTP
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
improve xml mime type description
Motivation
I created this PR because I was concerned that the previous description might spread a misunderstanding about RFC 7303.
Before this change, the description of XML MIME types gave the impression that RFC 7303 recommends using application/xml over text/xml and that text/xml is deprecated. However, after reviewing RFC 7303, I found that it explicitly standardizes text/xml and does not include any wording that suggests preferring application/xml. Instead, the document emphasizes the difference in MIME types (text/xml vs. application/xml) and suggests choosing between them based on the use case. Given this, I propose this revision to better align with the actual intent of RFC 7303.
Additional details
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7303
Related issues and pull requests