* Mark Baker wrote:
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?
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. 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 * ... All of them cite .xml as only or alternate extension, the latest of them being RFC 4930 which revises the application/epp+xml registration. -- 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/