Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-01.txt

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Henry,

Thanks for you work on this document and your patience.

On 2013/07/03 0:57, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Bjoern Hoehrmann writes:
>
>> I was waiting for a version that addresses Martin J. Dürst's comments.
>
> I certainly tried to address his comments -- see the DoC [1].

Unfortunately, I still have to go through that and the new draft (I 
printed out the later a few days ago). But unfortunately, that won't 
happen this week, hopefully over the weekend.

>> There still seems to be a lot of cruft that needs to be removed or con-
>> densed, large parts of section 9 for instance. As an example, 9.19 is
>> on "model/x3d+xml" which does not exist even though
>>
>>    http://www.web3d.org/x3d/publiclists/x3dpublic_list_archives/0609/msg00035.html
>>
>> is seven years old now, and there is no point in enumerating types for
>> MathML, XSLT, RDF, SVG, SOAP and others as more than list items.
>
> Martin didn't suggest pruning section 9 specifically, but I agree it
> could usefully get a lot smaller -- will do.

There was so much language that sounded outdated that at some point, I 
stopped making specific proposals. Basically, if you still find anything 
that smells like "this made a lot of sense ca. 2000" rather than "I 
guess this still reads reasonably well in 2020", then please fix it.

Regards,   Martin.

>> There are a number of problems with the references, for [SVG] for
>> instance we have formatting errors and the URL given leads an
>> arbitrary SVG-related technical report that might be SVG 1.1 Second
>> Edition, but it might also be an abandoned SVG 3 draft. [RFC3987]
>> has "DUeerst". [ASCII] also has formatting errors.
>
> Thanks for those, will fix.
>
>> The document says it would update RFC 4288, but that has been obsoleted
>> by RFC 6838.
>
> Right.
>
>> The type registration templates do not follow RFC 6838, for instance,
>> Author and Change Controller have been split into separate fields even
>> under RFC 4288 but for application/xml it is one field. That field does
>> not need to list all the e-mail addresses of people listed as editors
>> in the XML 1.0 specification. "MIME media type name" should be "Type
>> name", "MIME subtype name" should be "Subtype name" and so on.
>
> Will fix.
>
>> The application/xml registration template does not mention XML 1.1 at
>> all, so it is unclear whether the type can be used for 1.1 documents.
>
> Yes, I spotted that too late, thanks.
>
>> I suspect many of the references listed as normative are not in fact
>> normative.
>
> I reviewed pretty carefully and moved a significant number out of
> normative to non-normative -- happy to hear further specific
> candidates for 'demotion'.
>
>>     *HST: What do we do about the registration of +xml in RFC6839?  I
>>     think we need to reproduce it with appropriate changes, as it
>>     currently references 3023, and can be simplified/clarified by
>>     including it here.  . .*
>>
>> Including that in the document and updating RFC6839 accordingly does
>> seem to be a good way forward.
>
> OK -- any one else concur?
>
> Thanks v. much for feedback,
>
> ht