From ht@inf.ed.ac.uk Wed Oct 16 06:26:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B0721F935A; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:26:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f3w5yVtwBJBe; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk (treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.16.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7898911E813B; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.33.180]) by treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r9GDQ4fg028316; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:26:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk (troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.25.32]) by crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9GDQ2sd023958; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:26:02 +0100 Received: from troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9GDQ3mI004804; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:26:03 +0100 Received: (from ht@localhost) by troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r9GDQ34s004800; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:26:03 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk: ht set sender to ht@inf.ed.ac.uk using -f To: apps-discuss@ietf.org References: <20131016131142.32211.49752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:26:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20131016131142.32211.49752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> (internet-drafts@ietf.org's message of "Wed\, 16 Oct 2013 06\:11\:42 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) XEmacs/21.5-b33 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.60, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 129.215.16.102 Cc: xml-mime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml-mime] [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt X-BeenThere: xml-mime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of XML media types and issues relating to their use in MIME." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:26:19 -0000 internet-drafts writes: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area > Working Group Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : XML Media Types > Author(s) : Henry S. Thompson > Chris Lilley > Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt > Pages : 27 > Date : 2013-10-16 > > Abstract: > This specification standardizes three media types -- application/xml, > application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd -- > for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the > Extensible Markup Language (XML) while defining text/xml and text/ > xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective application/ > types. This specification also standardizes the '+xml' suffix for > naming media types outside of these five types when those media types > represent XML MIME entities. > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03 A thorough exposition of all comments received on the previous draft, and their resolution, is available at http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html Many thanks to the commentators, particularly Julian Reschke and Erik Wilde, for careful reading and helpful input. An author-markup-based diff is available at http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03_diff.html This is much easier to read than the IETF auto-generated one. Please note in particular that a significant addition has been made to section 3.6 [1], to address the fact that the XML spec. itself defers to this spec. to define the precedence of charset parameter, BOM and XML encoding declaration. The key new paragraph reads: All processors SHOULD treat a BOM (Section 4) as authoritative if it is present in an XML MIME entity. In the absence of a BOM (Section 4), all processors SHOULD treat the charset parameter as authoritative. Section 4.3.3 of the [XML] specification does _not_ make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding declaration to be inconsistent. Comments on this section, and wider review, would be very welcome. ht [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03#section-3.6 -- 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: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam] From superuser@gmail.com Thu Oct 17 00:13:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4236A21F9E89; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:13:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M1ZeyUvunuSh; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF06B11E8101; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l18so1778730wgh.18 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:12:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=A+/+eYjiB/yUkiiEEhqvt0Fblhmb2R9aaz75RJlLoFU=; b=TJN7VUVN4jE60ZeNWiTQT4qcEijTUfTglgJcwNlZKfyhHyfmAQP63EG1SpR5ekFmFT Etz7ajjcHg4tIO5W//02knmjKq/pzC3MlOnnWPgmA/0bB3svCr/ROIGXz3kKYaMOL/5C E6XyHGHAMN6+y2u6KhIhPOGAa5EZgPSBIdIvnBi2GrMHk6hjsjuS7qLeUyN3qVH1LVhh Qy3ipk4D17lerSRnJfwRHG78mvTa6FGqgl+yM+VNvaM011jOir0RuJX8IffXVem/Mskz FHxOFF6WXRGCEo03xNnzFkb+t4LteMqCTY9tntV4LLtQsiJmELJgqFHEhIrt5Mi1IF+l Dudw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.11.6 with SMTP id m6mr27698046wib.52.1381993979027; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:12:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20131016131142.32211.49752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:12:58 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "Henry S. Thompson" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2491233a7b604e8ea8c4b X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:51:33 -0700 Cc: xml-mime@ietf.org, IETF Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [xml-mime] [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt X-BeenThere: xml-mime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of XML media types and issues relating to their use in MIME." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:13:04 -0000 --001a11c2491233a7b604e8ea8c4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Colleagues, This one has already finished WGLC, but saw very little in the way of reviews during. There's been some good activity since, so I'm hoping we can move this along soon. Could we get those who commented before to chime in again to indicate they've ready the revision and either have more feedback, or think it's ready to progress? And a few others? Thanks, -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair & document shepherd On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > internet-drafts writes: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area > > Working Group Working Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : XML Media Types > > Author(s) : Henry S. Thompson > > Chris Lilley > > Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt > > Pages : 27 > > Date : 2013-10-16 > > > > Abstract: > > This specification standardizes three media types -- application/xml, > > application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd -- > > for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the > > Extensible Markup Language (XML) while defining text/xml and text/ > > xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective application/ > > types. This specification also standardizes the '+xml' suffix for > > naming media types outside of these five types when those media types > > represent XML MIME entities. > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03 > > A thorough exposition of all comments received on the previous draft, > and their resolution, is available at > > http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html > > Many thanks to the commentators, particularly Julian Reschke and Erik > Wilde, for careful reading and helpful input. > > An author-markup-based diff is available at > > > http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03_diff.html > > This is much easier to read than the IETF auto-generated one. > > Please note in particular that a significant addition has been made to > section 3.6 [1], to address the fact that the XML spec. itself defers > to this spec. to define the precedence of charset parameter, BOM and > XML encoding declaration. > > The key new paragraph reads: > > All processors SHOULD treat a BOM (Section 4) as authoritative if it > is present in an XML MIME entity. In the absence of a BOM (Section > 4), all processors SHOULD treat the charset parameter as > authoritative. Section 4.3.3 of the [XML] specification does _not_ > make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding > declaration to be inconsistent. > > Comments on this section, and wider review, would be very welcome. > > ht > > [1] > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03#section-3.6 > -- > 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: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ > [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged > spam] > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > --001a11c2491233a7b604e8ea8c4b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colleagues,

This one has already finished WGLC= , but saw very little in the way of reviews during.=A0 There's been som= e good activity since, so I'm hoping we can move this along soon.=A0 Co= uld we get those who commented before to chime in again to indicate they= 9;ve ready the revision and either have more feedback, or think it's re= ady to progress?=A0 And a few others?

Thanks,
-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair & document shepherd

=


On Wed,= Oct 16, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
internet-drafts writes:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. =A0This draft is a work item of the Applications Area
> Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : XML Media Types
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Henry S. Thompson
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Chris Lilley
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatype= s-03.txt
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 27
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2013-10-16
>
> Abstract:
> =A0 =A0This specification standardizes three media types -- applicatio= n/xml,
> =A0 =A0application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd= --
> =A0 =A0for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the<= br> > =A0 =A0Extensible Markup Language (XML) while defining text/xml and te= xt/
> =A0 =A0xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective applic= ation/
> =A0 =A0types. =A0This specification also standardizes the '+xml= 9; suffix for
> =A0 =A0naming media types outside of these five types when those media= types
> =A0 =A0represent XML MIME entities.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-apps= awg-xml-mediatypes
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-m= ediatypes-03

A thorough exposition of all comments received on the previous draft,=
and their resolution, is available at

=A0 http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html
Many thanks to the commentators, particularly Julian Reschke and Erik
Wilde, for careful reading and helpful input.

An author-markup-based diff is available at

=A0http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/30= 23bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03_diff.html

This is much easier to read than the IETF auto-generated one.

Please note in particular that a significant addition has been made to
section 3.6 [1], to address the fact that the XML spec. itself defers
to this spec. to define the precedence of charset parameter, BOM and
XML encoding declaration.

The key new paragraph reads:

=A0 All processors SHOULD treat a BOM (Section 4) as authoritative if it =A0 is present in an XML MIME entity. =A0In the absence of a BOM (Section =A0 4), all processors SHOULD treat the charset parameter as
=A0 authoritative. =A0Section 4.3.3 of the [XML] specification does _not_ =A0 make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding
=A0 declaration to be inconsistent.

Comments on this section, and wider review, would be very welcome.

ht

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ap= psawg-xml-mediatypes-03#section-3.6
--
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edin= burgh
=A0 =A0 =A0 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650= -4440
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
=A0[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged= spam]
_____________________= __________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--001a11c2491233a7b604e8ea8c4b-- From ht@inf.ed.ac.uk Tue Oct 22 08:14:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A6E11E83AB; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.697, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VfDY2o84p1Hi; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk (nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.13.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0382F11E84B9; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.33.180]) by nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r9MFDu1p012716; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:13:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk (troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.25.32]) by crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9MFDuGn032041; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:13:56 +0100 Received: from troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9MFDvmf009720; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:13:57 +0100 Received: (from ht@localhost) by troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r9MFDuMD009716; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:13:56 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk: ht set sender to ht@inf.ed.ac.uk using -f To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, xml-mime@ietf.org References: <20131016131142.32211.49752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:13:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20131016131142.32211.49752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> (internet-drafts@ietf.org's message of "Wed\, 16 Oct 2013 06\:11\:42 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) XEmacs/21.5-b33 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.60, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 129.215.13.205 Subject: Re: [xml-mime] [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt X-BeenThere: xml-mime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of XML media types and issues relating to their use in MIME." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:14:10 -0000 I've produced a new draft, with only one (moderately large) change, agreed in discussion with my fellow editor Chris Lilley. I've missed the official cutoff for publishing new drafts before Berlin, so please see http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-04.html#charset http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-04_diff.html#charset for substantial clarifications to the rework of Section 3.6 _Charset considerations_ given in version -03. Any existing reviewing work on any _other_ section based on version -03 is still relevant, as no other section has changed in any significant way. Note also accordingly that the diffs in the above -04_diff.html are still against version -02. Thanks, 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: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam] From ned.freed@mrochek.com Sun Oct 27 14:06:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AC111E82C0; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xIItHkdXmec5; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A2611E82BD; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P02XCP055S006LUY@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:01:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OZQXEDTQ3400004R@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <01P02XCD0M6W00004R@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:13:56 +0100" References: <20131016131142.32211.49752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:24:07 -0700 Cc: xml-mime@ietf.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml-mime] [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt X-BeenThere: xml-mime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of XML media types and issues relating to their use in MIME." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:06:42 -0000 > I've produced a new draft, with only one (moderately large) change, > agreed in discussion with my fellow editor Chris Lilley. I've missed > the official cutoff for publishing new drafts before Berlin, so please > see > http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-04.html#charset > http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-04_diff.html#charset The new charset material looks fine to me. > for substantial clarifications to the rework of Section 3.6 _Charset > considerations_ given in version -03. > Any existing reviewing work on any _other_ section based on version > -03 is still relevant, as no other section has changed in any > significant way. > Note also accordingly that the diffs in the above -04_diff.html are > still against version -02. A few additional comments, all fairly minor. In section 3, there are a couple of places where it says "The media types application/xml and text/xml MUST NOT be used". Would it make sense to include the +xml suffix as something that MUST NOT be used? The material at the end of Section 9.2 is arguably a little too important to relegate to an example. The obvious place to move it would be to Section 3.2. Ther probably should be a pointer at the end of Section 3.6 to the examples in Section 9. There's a missing period on the last sentence of Section 9.8. The IANA Considerations in Section 10 need to list the types being registered here. That's it! Ned From julian.reschke@gmx.de Mon Oct 28 06:27:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml-mime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB0211E82F2 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 06:27:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.931, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rxkFPeoLyufT for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 06:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76FB21F9EF2 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 06:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MbaS9-1VII6B27Xx-00Iz1j for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:27:30 +0100 Message-ID: <526E6640.6030500@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:27:28 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Henry S. Thompson" , apps-discuss@ietf.org References: <20131016131142.32211.49752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:BsCF3C02bbq7Y3/EYbLgwbvF15J4AOxfGK2S96tw0vs9gwcGUrX H+st64U6vIge26ah9YLKiVIXII8t6sXz5tvnP31SWGCrA4vG+FEIveeYX0Z0xfEXXlwgTNf wQxa0Pm6MQy19WCnrOID0zhF0/NPfltdKit3s5iSL/KUrvLBsnCBn3qyG+HIrBSwCCYNDnA L8EB/cxnwJgnVV4hcccjQ== Cc: xml-mime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml-mime] [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt X-BeenThere: xml-mime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of XML media types and issues relating to their use in MIME." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:27:42 -0000 On 2013-10-16 15:26, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > internet-drafts writes: > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area >> Working Group Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : XML Media Types >> Author(s) : Henry S. Thompson >> Chris Lilley >> Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt >> Pages : 27 >> Date : 2013-10-16 >> >> Abstract: >> This specification standardizes three media types -- application/xml, >> application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd -- >> for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the >> Extensible Markup Language (XML) while defining text/xml and text/ >> xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective application/ >> types. This specification also standardizes the '+xml' suffix for >> naming media types outside of these five types when those media types >> represent XML MIME entities. >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03 > > A thorough exposition of all comments received on the previous draft, > and their resolution, is available at > > http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html > > Many thanks to the commentators, particularly Julian Reschke and Erik > Wilde, for careful reading and helpful input. > > An author-markup-based diff is available at > > http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03_diff.html > > This is much easier to read than the IETF auto-generated one. > > Please note in particular that a significant addition has been made to > section 3.6 [1], to address the fact that the XML spec. itself defers > to this spec. to define the precedence of charset parameter, BOM and > XML encoding declaration. > > The key new paragraph reads: > > All processors SHOULD treat a BOM (Section 4) as authoritative if it > is present in an XML MIME entity. In the absence of a BOM (Section > 4), all processors SHOULD treat the charset parameter as > authoritative. Section 4.3.3 of the [XML] specification does _not_ > make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding > declaration to be inconsistent. > > Comments on this section, and wider review, would be very welcome. > > ht > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03#section-3.6 I will probably have to re-read the new document to review what's left to do (please post a new draft early next week when ID submission re-opens). One thing I noticed is that we now have informative references to HTTPbis, and normative references to RFC 2616. It should be the other way round (so the normative refs should be updated for HTTPbis, and if they can't this might be a problem either in this spec or HTTPbis, in which case it needs to be reported ASAP due to IETF LC). Best regards, Julian