Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-01.txt

From: [email-masked] (Henry S. Thompson)
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 15:45:04 +0100

This draft has been out for a month, with only one minor comment
appearing.  I'd like to do one more draft and try to close this out,
so please, it would be great to get any further comments this week, so
I can have a final draft in place for discussion in Berlin, if anyone
wants to do that (I can't make it :-(.

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: [email-masked]
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:25:48 +0200

>wants to do that (I can't make it :-(.

I was waiting for a version that addresses Martin J. Dürst's comments.
There still seems to be a lot of cruft that needs to be removed or con-
densed, large parts of section 9 for instance. As an example, 9.19 is
on "model/x3d+xml" which does not exist even though

  http://www.web3d.org/x3d/publiclists/x3dpublic_list_archives/0609/msg00035.html

is seven years old now, and there is no point in enumerating types for
MathML, XSLT, RDF, SVG, SOAP and others as more than list items. There
are a number of problems with the references, for [SVG] for instance we
have formatting errors and the URL given leads an arbitrary SVG-related
technical report that might be SVG 1.1 Second Edition, but it might also
be an abandoned SVG 3 draft. [RFC3987] has "DUeerst". [ASCII] also has
formatting errors.

The document says it would update RFC 4288, but that has been obsoleted
by RFC 6838.

The type registration templates do not follow RFC 6838, for instance,
Author and Change Controller have been split into separate fields even
under RFC 4288 but for application/xml it is one field. That field does
not need to list all the e-mail addresses of people listed as editors
in the XML 1.0 specification. "MIME media type name" should be "Type
name", "MIME subtype name" should be "Subtype name" and so on.

The application/xml registration template does not mention XML 1.1 at
all, so it is unclear whether the type can be used for 1.1 documents.

I suspect many of the references listed as normative are not in fact
normative.

   *HST: What do we do about the registration of +xml in RFC6839?  I
   think we need to reproduce it with appropriate changes, as it
   currently references 3023, and can be simplified/clarified by
   including it here.  . .*

Including that in the document and updating RFC6839 accordingly does
seem to be a good way forward.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: [email-masked] (Henry S. Thompson)
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:57:00 +0100

> I was waiting for a version that addresses Martin J. Dürst's comments.

I certainly tried to address his comments -- see the DoC [1].

> MathML, XSLT, RDF, SVG, SOAP and others as more than list items.

Martin didn't suggest pruning section 9 specifically, but I agree it
could usefully get a lot smaller -- will do.

> There are a number of problems with the references, for [SVG] for
> instance we have formatting errors and the URL given leads an
> arbitrary SVG-related technical report that might be SVG 1.1 Second
> Edition, but it might also be an abandoned SVG 3 draft. [RFC3987]
> has "DUeerst". [ASCII] also has formatting errors.

Thanks for those, will fix.

> The document says it would update RFC 4288, but that has been obsoleted

Right.

> name", "MIME subtype name" should be "Subtype name" and so on.

Will fix.

> all, so it is unclear whether the type can be used for 1.1 documents.

Yes, I spotted that too late, thanks.

> I suspect many of the references listed as normative are not in fact

I reviewed pretty carefully and moved a significant number out of
normative to non-normative -- happy to hear further specific
candidates for 'demotion'.

> seem to be a good way forward.

OK -- any one else concur?

Thanks v. much for feedback,

ht

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:06:01 -0400

> OK -- any one else concur?

Yes, I agree.

    Tony Hansen
    RFC 6839 co-author

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 17:17:28 +0900

Hello Henry,

Thanks for you work on this document and your patience.

> I certainly tried to address his comments -- see the DoC [1].

Unfortunately, I still have to go through that and the new draft (I 
printed out the later a few days ago). But unfortunately, that won't 
happen this week, hopefully over the weekend.

> could usefully get a lot smaller -- will do.

There was so much language that sounded outdated that at some point, I 
stopped making specific proposals. Basically, if you still find anything 
that smells like "this made a lot of sense ca. 2000" rather than "I 
guess this still reads reasonably well in 2020", then please fix it.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Rushforth, Peter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:50:54 +0000

Should the spec discuss xml:id and xml:space?  I apologize if this is
too late.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
> Sent: July 2, 2013 10:45
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-01.txt
> 
> This draft has been out for a month, with only one minor 
> comment appearing.  I'd like to do one more draft and try to 
> close this out, so please, it would be great to get any 
> further comments this week, so I can have a final draft in 
> place for discussion in Berlin, if anyone wants to do that (I 
> can't make it :-(.
> 
> ht
> -- 
> [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without 
> it is forged spam] _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Henry S. Thompson)
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:02:15 +0100

> Should the spec discuss xml:id and xml:space?  I apologize if this is

I don't _think_ so.  There is nothing about markup in the spec., and
that seems right.

ht

---

From: "Rushforth, Peter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 17:15:22 +0000

> 
> I don't _think_ so.  There is nothing about markup in the 
> spec., and that seems right.
> 

I guess everything about markup is included by reference to the relevant
specs; there's no sense duplicating everything there in the media type spec.  

There is a section on xml:base, which made me think about
the related specs.  Most of them are discussed in the XML spec, except xml:id,
which I suppose is not an issue.

Thanks
Peter