* Mark Baker wrote:
Well, the point is that if you had two HTTP messages with the same body, but one with application/vnd.recordare.musicxml+xml and the other with application/xml, those messages mean two different things. text/plain would mean something different than those two messages. Only with application/vnd.recordare.musicxml+xml is there an authoritative, publicly specified (self-descriptive) path from the HTTP message to the MusicXML specification, and therefore that's the only message that means "interpret this as MusicXML".
The point is that you said the proposal needs to be changed and that .xml is not suitable for the proposed type. This is not backed by RFC 4288, RFC 3023, or by consensus on the ietf-types list. There are in- deed good arguments to pick a different extension, and there are good arguments against doing that. It's fine to present arguments for either approach and express personal preferences, but claiming requirements where there are none is not. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/