Re: Media types

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 09:44 +0700, James Clark wrote:
> > We should think about what our story is on media types? application/xml,
> > application/microxml, application/microxml+xml, application/micro+xml?
>
> application/xml and application/microxml are the only two that make a
> lot of sense to me there.
>

I've just found RFC6657 which changes the rules on charset handling for
text/* media types. I think this would also make text/microxml a viable
option.

application/foo+xml tends to be used for specific XML vocabularies.
>

I had a look at RFC3023 (the XML Media Types RFC) and found this:


A.14 What happens when an even better markup language (e.g., EBML) is
     defined, or a new category of data?

   In the ten years that MIME has existed, XML is the first generic data
   format that has seemed to justify special treatment, so it is hoped
   that no further suffixes will be necessary.  However, if some are
   later defined, and these documents were also XML, they would need to
   specify that the '+xml' suffix is always the outermost suffix (e.g.,
   application/foo+ebml+xml not application/foo+xml+ebml).  If they were
   not XML, then they would use a regular suffix (e.g., application/foo+ebml).


This suggest to me that application/micro+xml or application/*+micro+xml
are reasonable (at least in the opinion of the XML Media Types RFC's
authors).

W3C has a fast-track process for MIME media type registrations but only
> for formats whose specification is on the (not so fast) W3C Rec track.


I guess we could try to publish our spec as an RFC as well as as a W3C CG
report.

James