Re: New Version Notification for draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03
MURATA Makoto wrote:
So how about changing it just for the HTTP transport then?
You are proposing to fix HTTP 1.1. Then, you would need to write an internet draft which would obsolete RFC 2068 and have it approved by IESG. ...
Actually, it would be RFC2616, not RFC2068. Furthermore, we're actually doing this in the IETF HTTPbis Working Group. So let's rephrase it... do you have an opinion whether an update to HTTP/1.1 *should* make this change? BR, Julian
Actually, it would be RFC2616, not RFC2068.
Oops, my apologies!
Furthermore, we're actually doing this in the IETF HTTPbis Working Group.
Yes, I was aware of this activity.
So let's rephrase it... do you have an opinion whether an update to HTTP/1.1 *should* make this change?
I believe that the RFCs for XML media type should faithfully follow MIME and HTTP/1.1. When the first RFC for XML media types was created, I was told that neither MIME RFCs nor HTTP/1.1 can be changed here. Ten years have passed since then. I think that facts (ideally based on statistics of correct/incorrect charset) should be documented first and then a required change (if any) should be introduced. Cheers, -- MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
participants (2)
-
Julian Reschke -
MURATA Makoto