Dan and Philipp,
Philipp, could I suggest that you review
<http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml>, which is expected to shortly replace
RFC 2376. Specifically, I would strongly recommend changing your
application to application/smil+xml, and quoting the appropriate sections of
RFC 2376bis by reference rather than by repeating the text.
Thanks for considering this.
- dan
I raised this issue in January.
-- http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00315.html
Philipp replied.
--http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00319.html
However, the use of "application/smil" predates the proposal of
appending "-xml" to XML-based MIME types by more than a year - I think
the first Internet draft dates from April '98. The proposal has
already been succesfully reviewed in the past on ietf-types,
but somebody dropped the ball bringing it to the IESG. Given
this history, and that there is an installed base, it seems reasonable
to stick with the current practice of using "application/smil".
I requested addition of this historical reason in the I-D.
-- http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00320.html
However, in order not to make an antecedent, I would like the I-D to mention
this name convention and reasons not to follow it.
Phillip oked.
-- http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00321.html
Phillip, could you revise the I-D as you promised?
Cheers,
IBM Tokyo Research Lab &
International University of Japan, Research Institute
MURATA Makoto