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
<ht(_at_)inf(_dot_)ed(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> 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(_at_)inf(_dot_)ed(_dot_)ac(_dot_)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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
_______________________________________________
xml-mime mailing list
xml-mime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-mime