Re: [apps-discuss] Getting 3023bis, a.k.a. draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes, moving

"Rushforth, Peter" <> Tue, 30 April 2013 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7518821F9C70 for <>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iq-zeGjdVDKA for <>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F2C21F9C07 for <>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:20:53 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([fe80::a1cd:5722:74ed:d1fd%21]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:20:53 -0400
From: "Rushforth, Peter" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Getting 3023bis, a.k.a. draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes, moving
Thread-Index: AQHORa+Mzw7c9r1aD0ytKlzWRPtL8ZjvHZQA
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:20:53 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Getting 3023bis, a.k.a. draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes, moving
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:21:05 -0000

Henry, Chris et al.,

> Further to a suggestion from Julian, perhaps if people would 
> chip in with their (un)favourite bugs/problems in/with 3023, 
> I can try to show how the draft [1] addresses them.
> Comments directed straight at the draft w/o reference to 3023 
> are, of course, also welcome.

Section 8.

Suggest to remove the recommendation to register media types with +xml
suffix.  Suggest to add recommendation for a 'profile' parameter for application/xml,
as is being done for atom :

Suggest to remove reference to Appendix A.  Remove Appendix A, also. All
of that stuff is not the business of this RFC, but is the responsibility 
of the registration procedure, in my opinion. 

Suggest to remove discussion of hypertext linking.  XML does not include
hypermedia affordances, so there is a disconnect between what can be expected in
application/xml vs. what is discussed in this RFC.  If an XML vocabulary
contains XLinks, let that vocabulary register its own media type.
Also, relative to the discussion of XLinks in that section, the web is
not limited to XML documents (heck they hardly even exist on the web),
so perhaps XLink itself needs an update to allow linking to non-XML

Peter Rushforth