- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@sfc.keio.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:46:51 +0900
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, media-types@ietf.org
- CC: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, www-multimodal@w3.org
Hi Bjoern and media-types list, # sorry resending with the correct address for the media-types list Thank you for your thoughtful comments every time, Bjoern. The W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group is planning to publish a Proposed Recommendation for EmotionML and would like to wrap up the MIME type registration procedure. Could you please see inline below for my response to your comment? BTW, I thought I had sent the following response to your comment and it is archived at the W3C archive at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2012May/0016.html However, it seems there was some email trouble and my message was not archived at the IETF archive... So this time I'd like to use my Keio address instead. On 05/11/2012 10:22 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > * Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote: >> W3C has just published a Candidate Recommendation for "Emotion Markup >> Language (EmotionML)" at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-emotionml-20120510/ >> >> I am sending this request to ask the Ietf-types list for comments on >> the Media Type section of the EmotionML specification following the >> procedure defined at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype > > The procedure requires Working Groups to ask for ietf-types review when > making a Last Call announcement. I have not been able to find any such > request in the archive. If the Working Group failed to follow the pro- > cedure, it would be helpful if you could put that on the record. Sorry but as you pointed out we failed to send out a review request when we published the Last Call Working Draft. >> MIME media type name: >> --------------------- >> application > > This is using an outdated template. The current one is in RFC 4288. In > it, some field names are different and some fields are organized in a > different manner. Thank you for pointing out that, Bjoern. I've checked RFC4288 at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288 and think we should say: [[ Type name: application Subtype name: emotionml+xml ]] instead here. >> Optional parameters: >> -------------------- >> charset >> >> This parameter has identical semantics to the charset parameter >> of the application/xml media type as specified in [RFC3023] or its >> successor. >> >> Encoding considerations: >> ------------------------ >> By virtue of EmotionML content being XML, it has the same >> considerations when sent as "application/emotionml+xml" as does XML. See >> RFC 3023 (or its successor), section 3.2. > > RFC 3023 has boilerplate for this, but the above seems close enough. Thanks! So the revised version of the EmotionML media type definition should be the following. Please note I've added "Applications that use this media type" field and "Restrictions on usage" field based on the RFC4288 template. Also I've split "Author/Change controller" field into "Author" field and "Change controller" field. [[ Type name: application Subtype name: emotionml+xml Required parameters: None. Optional parameters: charset This parameter has identical semantics to the charset parameter of the application/xml media type as specified in [RFC 3023] or its successor. Encoding considerations: By virtue of EmotionML content being XML, it has the same considerations when sent as "application/emotionml+xml" as does XML. See RFC 3023 (or its successor), section 3.2. Security considerations: EmotionML elements may include arbitrary URIs. Therefore the security issues of [RFC 3986], section 7, should be considered. In addition, because of the extensibility features for EmotionML, it is possible that "application/emotionml+xml" will describe content that has security implications beyond those described here. However, if the processor follows only the normative semantics of this specification, this content will be ignored. Only in the case where the processor recognizes and processes the additional content, or where further processing of that content is dispatched to other processors, would security issues potentially arise. And in that case, they would fall outside the domain of this registration document. Interoperability considerations: This specification describes processing semantics that dictate the required behavior for dealing with, among other things, unrecognized elements. Because EmotionML is extensible, conformant "application/emotionml+xml" processors MAY expect that content received is well-formed XML, but processors SHOULD NOT assume that the content is valid EmotionML or expect to recognize all of the elements and attributes in the document. Published specification: This media type registration is extracted from Appendix B of the "Emotion Markup Language (EmotionML) 1.0" specification. Additional information: Magic number(s): There is no single initial octet sequence that is always present in EmotionML documents. File extension(s): EmotionML documents are most often identified with the extensions ".emotionml". Macintosh File Type Code(s): TEXT Person & email address to contact for further information: Kazuyuki Ashimura, <ashimura@w3.org>. Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: None. Author: The EmotionML specification is a work product of the World Wide Web Consortium's Multimodal Interaction Working Group. Change controller: The W3C has change control over these specifications. ]] Thanks, Kazuyuki -- Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Received on Sunday, 24 March 2013 22:47:16 UTC