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

[[e-mail] (Henry S. Thompson)]

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].

> 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 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
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]