Re: [media-types] request for comments on media types section of PROV-XML

* Stephan Zednik wrote:
>On Feb 25, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>> * Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>> Optional parameters:
>>> charset - this parameter may be required when transferring non-ASCII data across some protocols.
>> 
>> This should use language as provided in RFC 3023 section 7.1.
>
>Here, and a few areas below such as with "Base URI" I was following the example OWL XML.
>
>from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/#Appendix:_Internet_Media_Type.2C_File_Extension.2C_and_Macintosh_File_Type

It would be better to follow the example of a registered type. The type
there has not been registered.

>Should it be:
>
>"Same as charset parameter of application/xml as specified in RFC 3023 (Section 3.2)."

Yes.

>>> Encoding considerations:
>>> The syntax of PROV-XML is expressed over code points in Unicode [[!UNICODE]]
>> 
>> As above.
>
>Should it be:
>
>"Same as encoding considerations of application/xml as specified in RFC 3023 (Section 3.2)."

Yes.

>>> Security considerations:
>>> [...]
>> 
>> There are formatting problems here (like use of entity references).
>
>Is the use of entity references here bad?  Or is there something wrong with them?

Using them in plain text documents is bad, yes.

>>> Published specification:
>>> PROV-XML: The PROV XML Schema, Hua, Tilmes, Zednik (eds), Moreau <a 
>>> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-xml/">http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-xml/</a>, 
>>> 2012.
>> 
>> I believe this is still (after the RFC4288 revision) supposed to
>> reference a specification that actually includes the template, and
>> the published draft does not include it.
>
>Could you rephrase?  or better yet, provide insight on what should go here.

The issue will go away when your editor's draft is published under the
address given above and the specification reference is updated to refer
to it (it would have to cite "2013" as the year, then).

>>> Additional Information:
>>> 
>>> 	Magic number(s):
>>> 	PROV-XML documents are XML documents and thus may have initial strings similar to any XML document.
>>> 
>>> 	File extension(s):
>>> 	.provx
>>> 
>>> 	Base URI:
>>> 	As in XML.
>> 
>> I don't understand what that means; I suggest removing this field.
>
>I assume you mean "Base URI" and not all of "Additional Information"?

Yes.

>> I also note that you don't have any Fragment
>> Identifier Considerations.
>
>I don't have any beyond what is in RFC 3023 Section 5.
>
>Should I put "none" or "Same as RFC 3023 (Section 5.)."?

A value of "N/A" might be best.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 11:22:15 UTC