Media Type review request for application/dialog-info+xml
The Transport Area requests a Media Type review for the proposed new type application/dialog-info+xml, intended for the IETF tree, and specified http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-05.txt (Section 8.1). We know of the following needed changes: 1. Author/Change Controller will be modified to "SIPPING Working Group delegated from the IESG" Please provide any comments as soon as possible. Thanks, Allison
* Allison Mankin wrote:
The Transport Area requests a Media Type review for the proposed new type application/dialog-info+xml, intended for the IETF tree, and specified http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-05.txt (Section 8.1).
Why does it list .xml as file extension? I think the .dif extension is used for for application/vnd.ms-excel and video/dv already, did the Working Group take that into account when choosing the extension? -- 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/
At 04:30 05/01/25, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Allison Mankin wrote:
The Transport Area requests a Media Type review for the proposed new type application/dialog-info+xml, intended for the IETF tree, and specified http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-05.txt (Section 8.1).
Why does it list .xml as file extension?
Hello Bjoern, Is there anything wrong with using a .xml extension? If yes, what? Regards, Martin. I think the .dif extension is
used for for application/vnd.ms-excel and video/dv already, did the Working Group take that into account when choosing the extension? -- Bj$B�S(Bn H$B�I(Brmann $B%-(B mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de $B%-(B http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 $B%-(B Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 $B%-(B http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim $B%-(B PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 $B%-(B http://www.websitedev.de/
* Martin Duerst wrote:
At 04:30 05/01/25, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Allison Mankin wrote:
The Transport Area requests a Media Type review for the proposed new type application/dialog-info+xml, intended for the IETF tree, and specified http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-05.txt (Section 8.1).
Why does it list .xml as file extension?
Is there anything wrong with using a .xml extension? If yes, what?
Well, e.g. RFC 3236 states: [...] It is not recommended that the ".xml" extension (defined in [XMLMIME]) be used, as web servers may be configured to distribute such content as type "text/xml" or "application/xml". [XMLMIME] discusses the unreliability of this approach in section 3. Of course, should the author desire this behaviour, then the ".xml" extension can be used. [...] -- 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/
Hi, This format is unlikely to be fetched from a web server, but if it is, the behavior described for .xml sounds appropriate to me. Since this format is unlikely to be stored permanently in a file system it makes sense not to reserve a new 3-character extension. thanks, -rohan On Jan 24, 2005, at 17:39, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Martin Duerst wrote:
At 04:30 05/01/25, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Allison Mankin wrote:
The Transport Area requests a Media Type review for the proposed new type application/dialog-info+xml, intended for the IETF tree, and specified http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-dialog- package-05.txt (Section 8.1).
Why does it list .xml as file extension?
Is there anything wrong with using a .xml extension? If yes, what?
Well, e.g. RFC 3236 states:
[...] It is not recommended that the ".xml" extension (defined in [XMLMIME]) be used, as web servers may be configured to distribute such content as type "text/xml" or "application/xml". [XMLMIME] discusses the unreliability of this approach in section 3. Of course, should the author desire this behaviour, then the ".xml" extension can be used. [...] -- 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/
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:39:17AM +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Martin Duerst wrote:
At 04:30 05/01/25, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Allison Mankin wrote:
The Transport Area requests a Media Type review for the proposed new type application/dialog-info+xml, intended for the IETF tree, and specified http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-05.txt (Section 8.1).
Why does it list .xml as file extension?
Is there anything wrong with using a .xml extension? If yes, what?
Well, e.g. RFC 3236 states:
[...] It is not recommended that the ".xml" extension (defined in [XMLMIME]) be used, as web servers may be configured to distribute such content as type "text/xml" or "application/xml". [XMLMIME] discusses the unreliability of this approach in section 3. Of course, should the author desire this behaviour, then the ".xml" extension can be used. [...]
Yes, I was surprised I managed to get away with including that, given the penchant for the use of */xml types at the time (and to this day, it seems). The relevant paragraph from section 3 is this; An XML document labeled as text/xml or application/xml might contain namespace declarations, stylesheet-linking processing instructions (PIs), schema information, or other declarations that might be used to suggest how the document is to be processed. For example, a document might have the XHTML namespace and a reference to a CSS stylesheet. Such a document might be handled by applications that would use this information to dispatch the document for appropriate processing. Emphasis on "might". Said another way, there is no specification which licenses a recipient of a */xml-described (say) XHTML document, to infer that the sender intended the message to convey XHTML semantics. Therefore, using a .xml extension provides different semantics than using the .dif extension. Unless this is desirable - which I seriously doubt - I agree that .xml should be excluded. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
At 04:17 05/01/25, Allison Mankin wrote:
The Transport Area requests a Media Type review for the proposed new type application/dialog-info+xml, intended for the IETF tree, and specified http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-05.txt (Section 8.1).
We know of the following needed changes:
1. Author/Change Controller will be modified to "SIPPING Working Group delegated from the IESG"
Does it make sense to have a WG as Change Controller? IETF WGs are supposed to end, but change control doesn't end. Regards, Martin.
Hi, Martin, The media type registration document says to register ietf tree types to the IESG, but it has struck me that if the working group is* extant, it has more useful information than the IESG would. So just last week, the IESG discussed and informally backed this change controller formulation where the working group is delegated from the iesg. I suggest that the not-quite final registration draft include that this is legal language, and that if the working group change controller is found to be concluded, then the change controller reverts to the IESG. Allison
participants (5)
-
Allison Mankin -
Bjoern Hoehrmann -
Mark Baker -
Martin Duerst -
Rohan Mahy