On 6/7/07, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
The XML format will need its own file extension. Reusing ".xml" is unsuitable because it is commonly bound to the application/xml, text/xml, or text/rss media types. Consult http://filext.com to find a suitable one.
There are many formats that re-use application/xml and there are many +xml formats that cite or otherwise use .xml as appropriate extension. There is no actual need for a separate file extension. If .xml is what applications and documents use now, that's what should be registered.
Disagree. For the vast majority of server configurations, ".xml" maps to one of those three types, and would therefore pretty much guarantee the mislabelling of many MusicXML files. In addition, IIRC, we've requested that at least a couple of registrations use their own file extension instead of ".xml"... here's one; http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2006-May/001753.html Mark.