W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Requesting IESG Approval for the Media Type application/exi

From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:04:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4BBB69A1.30609@isode.com>
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, iesg@ietf.org, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Carine Bournez <cbournez@w3.org>
Carine Bournez wrote:

>On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:14:47PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>Dear Philippe (and W3C),
>>IESG has no problems registering this MIME type.
>>However IESG would like to ask one (non blocking) question, which might  
>>result in update to the registration:
>>Many EXI documents can not be understood without the associated grammar  
>>which does not have to be provided inside the EXI doc. It might be good  
>>to define an optional parameter that provides a URI or some sort of name  
>>to find the associated grammar.
>>Please let IESG know if you would like to update the registration, or if  
>>you want to register it as is.
>Dear Alexey,
Dear Carine,

>First, note that EXI processors do not exchange EXI grammars directly. The       
>information used by the processors to build the grammars, in addition to         
>the rules defined in the EXI format specification, is extracted from the         
>document schema (if any) that the SchemaID option can specify.                   
>The Working Group discussed the possibility of sending information about         
>the document schema (i.e. schemaID) as an optional parameter of the              
>application/exi Media Type.                                                      
>We decided that it was not desirable:                                            
>We already have the possibility to send the EXI Options in the EXI               
>stream, otherwise Options are negotiated out of band. Having an optional         
>parameter of the media type would introduce a third way to define the            
>schemaID, outside of the EXI Options, which seems to be an unnecessary           
>complication. In addition, the application/exi Media type is not the             
>preferred way to describe the exchange, as stated in the specification,          
>and as much as possible the Content Encoding token "exi" should be used          
>along with the original XML document media type.
Thank you for the extra information.

Approval of the media type was just announced.


IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 17:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:34 UTC