- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:14:57 +0100
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- CC: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, iesg@ietf.org, Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Alexey Melnikov wrote: > >> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: >> >>> Hello Alexey, >> > Hi Philippe, > I've done a detailed review of the 3 registrations. > application/xslt+xml and application/xquery+xml look fine to me (I > might have some non blocking nits I report separately). I have some > further comments regarding application/xquery, I am sorry that I > haven't spotted them earlier. In particular: 1). <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PER-xquery-20090421/#id-registration-of-mime-type> is using own order of sections (and sometimes uses different section names) from the template prescribed in Section 10 of RFC 4288. I thought information about Magic numbers is missing, but I finally found section "G.4 Recognizing XQuery Files", which covers that. In the future, I would ask W3C to use the correct template, as it makes checking registrations easier. 2). > The syntax of XQuery is expressed in Unicode but may be written with > any Unicode-compatible character encoding, including UTF-8 or UTF-16, > or transported as US-ASCII or Latin-1 with Unicode characters outside > the range of the given encoding represented using an XML-style ෝ > syntax. Is there any good reason for allowing Latin-1? IETF pretty much settled on only using US-ASCII, UTF-8 (and rarely UTF-16).
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 21:15:43 UTC