On Mon, 10 May 1999, Ned Freed wrote:
1a) What are the costs of adding xml- as a prefix to XML-based MIME types?
(Rick Jelliffe's proposal.)
There are actually three possible proposals in this space:
(1) Add a "xml." facet and corresponding registration tree. Again, this
requires writing a specification, and it is likely to be controversial
because this doesn't meet the criteria for a new registration tree and
also isn't orthogonal to existing trees.
Why doesnt it meet the criteria for new trees? The point of a
registration tree is to accomodate registration authorities other than
the IETF/RFC mechanism: a program administered by a registrar accepted by
W3C (the copyright holders) and IETF seems to meet the criteria as far as
I read them. Also, where did this requirement for orthogonality spring from?
(2) Recommend/require that the names of XML-based types have "xml-" after
the registration facet.
The RFC for MIME media types does not allow for delegation of IETF
registration tree names, which is what you seem to suggest here.
All new MIME media types require writing a specification (an RFC).
The only ways around this is either to rewrite the MIME media type spec,
or to add a registration tree. I don't see how it can be done inside the XML
spec, under the current procedures. If the MIME spec is rewritten to allow
the registration of a prefix (application/xml-*) and to allow people to use
that prefix without creating an RFC, we increase the likelihood for
collision: this is why we need a registration tree.
We are easily getting a DTD a day being announced, and many more being
created. There is no way they can all be vetted adequately; and they do
not need to be vetted if they use XML: it already has the RFC out. They
should be able to piggyback on top of the XML RFC, and just provide
minimal extra information.
This is why I think it is more than just an issue of the inconvenience of
getting an XML registration tree up: I think other approaches will cause
more trouble.
Rick Jelliffe