8 Jun
2007
8 Jun
'07
2:16 p.m.
On 6/8/07, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
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.
I pointed out that at least one other media type registration switched from ".xml" to a media type specific file extension. I think that demonstrates that it has been the concensus position of the list in the past. On what basis do you claim that it is not? Mark.