Request for review of media sub-type registration request
Colleagues - The attached draft contains a request for registration of a media sub-type and an XML namespace. I would very much welcome your guidance on the completeness and correctness of the information it provides prior to formal submission of the draft and the registration request. Thank you for your help. All the best. Tim. Tim Moses +1 613 270 3183
* Tim Moses wrote:
Colleagues - The attached draft contains a request for registration of a media sub-type and an XML namespace. I would very much welcome your guidance on the completeness and correctness of the information it provides prior to formal submission of the draft and the registration request.
You incorrectly list 'charset' as required parameter, it should be optional. I believe it is customary to specify the leading '.' in the file name extension. Could you explain why you are using .xml instead of some other extension, or none? I think it would be good to follow the RFC 4288 template more closely, e.g., use "Magic number(s)" with the trailing "(s)", write "limited use" in all-uppercase, etc. I don't think the reference to RFC 3023 is useful in its current form, but I'd have to check what other +xml type registrations do to recommend some- thing better. -- 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/
Bjoern - Thanks for your suggestions. I will incorporate them into the next version. In answer to your question regarding the file extension, the choice of '.xml' facilitates generic XML processing. RFC3023 talks about this approach extensively. In particular, an originator who does not have access to a special-purpose application can produce reports and check their schema-validity using only an XML authoring tool. Likewise for a recipient. In terms of 'magic numbers', I cannot find an example of a registration request that contains magic numbers for xml documents. I would be happy to follow an example if you are able to direct me to one. Thanks again. All the best. Tim. Tim Moses +1 613 270 3183 -----Original Message----- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:24 PM To: Tim Moses Cc: ietf-types@iana.org; David M'Raihi Subject: Re: Request for review of media sub-type registration request * Tim Moses wrote:
Colleagues - The attached draft contains a request for registration of a media sub-type and an XML namespace. I would very much welcome your guidance on the completeness and correctness of the information it provides prior to formal submission of the draft and the registration request.
You incorrectly list 'charset' as required parameter, it should be optional. I believe it is customary to specify the leading '.' in the file name extension. Could you explain why you are using .xml instead of some other extension, or none? I think it would be good to follow the RFC 4288 template more closely, e.g., use "Magic number(s)" with the trailing "(s)", write "limited use" in all-uppercase, etc. I don't think the reference to RFC 3023 is useful in its current form, but I'd have to check what other +xml type registrations do to recommend some- thing better. -- 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 7/14/08, Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com> wrote:
Bjoern - Thanks for your suggestions. I will incorporate them into the next version.
In answer to your question regarding the file extension, the choice of '.xml' facilitates generic XML processing. RFC3023 talks about this approach extensively. In particular, an originator who does not have access to a special-purpose application can produce reports and check their schema-validity using only an XML authoring tool. Likewise for a recipient.
RFC 3023 offers mixed advice there. It suggests that there could be some generic processing triggered from the +xml suffix, but also warns against assuming namespace dispatching on */xml. It's the latter point that's the concern here because the Apache mime.types file[1] (which is reused by other Web servers) associates ".xml" files with the application/xml media type, meaning that any file using that extension will be served by that server with that type unless the default configuration is changed. As I doubt this is what your users would want, I would recommend minting a specific file extension so that the default behaviour is to use this new registered type: try filext.com. [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/mime.types
In terms of 'magic numbers', I cannot find an example of a registration request that contains magic numbers for xml documents. I would be happy to follow an example if you are able to direct me to one.
Some registrations pay lip service to it, but in fact there aren't any magic numbers for XML content. I'd just say "None". Mark.
Thanks Mark. I'll incorporate your suggestion in the next submission. All the best. Tim. Tim Moses +1 613 270 3183 -----Original Message----- From: mark@coactus.com [mailto:mark@coactus.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 5:07 PM To: Tim Moses Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; ietf-types@iana.org; David M'Raihi Subject: Re: Request for review of media sub-type registration request On 7/14/08, Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com> wrote:
Bjoern - Thanks for your suggestions. I will incorporate them into the next version.
In answer to your question regarding the file extension, the choice of '.xml' facilitates generic XML processing. RFC3023 talks about this approach extensively. In particular, an originator who does not have access to a special-purpose application can produce reports and check their schema-validity using only an XML authoring tool. Likewise for a recipient.
RFC 3023 offers mixed advice there. It suggests that there could be some generic processing triggered from the +xml suffix, but also warns against assuming namespace dispatching on */xml. It's the latter point that's the concern here because the Apache mime.types file[1] (which is reused by other Web servers) associates ".xml" files with the application/xml media type, meaning that any file using that extension will be served by that server with that type unless the default configuration is changed. As I doubt this is what your users would want, I would recommend minting a specific file extension so that the default behaviour is to use this new registered type: try filext.com. [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/mime.types
In terms of 'magic numbers', I cannot find an example of a
registration request that contains magic numbers for xml documents. I would be happy to follow an example if you are able to direct me to one. Some registrations pay lip service to it, but in fact there aren't any magic numbers for XML content. I'd just say "None". Mark.
participants (3)
-
Bjoern Hoehrmann -
Mark Baker -
Tim Moses