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
_______________________________________________
xml-mime mailing list
xml-mime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-mime