Forwarded message 1
internet-drafts writes:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area
> Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
>
> Title : XML Media Types
> Author(s) : Henry S. Thompson
> Chris Lilley
> Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt
> Pages : 27
> Date : 2013-10-16
>
> Abstract:
> This specification standardizes three media types -- application/xml,
> application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd --
> for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the
> Extensible Markup Language (XML) while defining text/xml and text/
> xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective application/
> types. This specification also standardizes the '+xml' suffix for
> naming media types outside of these five types when those media types
> represent XML MIME entities.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03
A thorough exposition of all comments received on the previous draft,
and their resolution, is available at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html
Many thanks to the commentators, particularly Julian Reschke and Erik
Wilde, for careful reading and helpful input.
An author-markup-based diff is available at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03_diff.html
This is much easier to read than the IETF auto-generated one.
Please note in particular that a significant addition has been made to
section 3.6 [1], to address the fact that the XML spec. itself defers
to this spec. to define the precedence of charset parameter, BOM and
XML encoding declaration.
The key new paragraph reads:
All processors SHOULD treat a BOM (Section 4) as authoritative if it
is present in an XML MIME entity. In the absence of a BOM (Section
4), all processors SHOULD treat the charset parameter as
authoritative. Section 4.3.3 of the [XML] specification does _not_
make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding
declaration to be inconsistent.
Comments on this section, and wider review, would be very welcome.
ht
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03#section-3.6
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
_______________________________________________
xml-mime mailing list
xml-mime@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-mime
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]