http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-00.txt
This looks very good. It still might be useful to provide a little more
of the information from
<http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype> to give hints to other
standards bodies about the ordering of their draft, to publishing an
I-D, to last calls, to their publication, to informational RFC
publication. I believe this caused some confusion with the W3C until it
was worked out, and informatively referencing the W3C process might even
be useful.
I actually this it is sort of the other way around -- this procedure needs to
be updated to reflect the new draft. I don't see anything in the W3C procedure
that really belongs in registration procedure and which isn't already there.
Also, RFC 3023 updated RFC 2048. Could you please reference RFC 3023
and explicitly mention the prohibition from RFC 3023 that, "media
subtypes that do not represent XML MIME entities MUST NOT be allowed to
register with a '+xml' suffix".
Good idea. Added.
You might reference this whole paragraph from section 7 of RFC 3023:
[T]hose registering [XML] media types SHOULD use the '+xml'
convention unless they have a particularly compelling reason not
to....
The registrar for the IETF tree will encourage new XML-
based media type registrations in the IETF tree to follow this
guideline. Registrars for other trees SHOULD follow this convention
in order to ensure maximum interoperability of their XML-based
documents. Similarly, media subtypes that do not represent XML MIME
entities MUST NOT be allowed to register with a '+xml' suffix.
Rather than reiterall the rules for XML media type registration I've
added a section that refers to RFC 3023.
Ned