> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Alexander Johannesen
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 21:43, Rebecca S Guenther <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Patrick is right that an XML schema such as MODS or MARCXML would be
> I would strongly advise against text/xml, as it is an oxymoron (text
> is not XML XML is not text even if it is delivered through a text
> protocol), and more and more are switching away from the generic text
> protocol (which makes little sense in structured data).
According to RFC 3023, section 3 XML Media Types:
If an XML document -- that is, the unprocessed, source XML document
-- is readable by casual users, text/xml is preferable to
application/xml. MIME user agents (and web user agents) that do not
have explicit support for text/xml will treat it as text/plain, for
example, by displaying the XML MIME entity as plain text.
Application/xml is preferable when the XML MIME entity is unreadable
by casual users.
So it is justified to return a Content-Type header with text/xml. It
depends upon whether you think MARC-XML, MODS, MADS, etc. are readable
by casual users and the user agents you expect to be accessing the
> Hence, a more correct MIME type for XMLMARC would be
> application/marc+xml, although until registered should be
I'm not sure the +xml is correct on two fronts. First RFC 2220 defines
the media type for MARC binary, not MARC-XML, and it was my understanding
that the +xml meant that the schema allowed extension by using XML
namespaces which MARC binary does not. Further, in the case of MARC-XML,
its schema also does not allow arbitrary XML elements. MODS and MADS I
believe do, but that is a different story.