
On 6/9/07, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
That is invalid reasoning, one can easily hold that .xml is suitable for types beyond those defined in RFC 3023 and that some types might or even should use other extensions at the same time.
It's obviously suitable, just as ".txt" is suitable for ASCII XML files.
Evidence that there is no consensus that all +xml types must have an extension different from .xml is easy to come by, take the registrations of these types for examples:
* application/epp+xml * application/simple-filter+xml * application/conference-info+xml * application/dialog-info+xml * application/cpl+xml * application/watcherinfo+xml * application/reginfo+xml * application/vnd.avistar+xml * application/vnd.informedcontrol.rms+xml
Unfortunately, I didn't review those 8-) Anyhow, it would be good if you could respond to my earlier comments about message semantics. Perhaps we can continue this on ietf-xml-mime though, per Larry's email. Mark.