[apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-06
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 10 January 2014 23:59 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D69F1AE0E2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:59:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oBTGqt8maFrx for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B442B1AE0BF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0ANxB10008849 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:59:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1389398365; bh=ub4ioPGg3hkaMnvxIgw+967Zv/hRHNEJdao9yyj0Jl0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=rI00jUNXOklbXOryEPBTWAZhbk1jf7u3BFuB2cFB17Vi5dcrfWpr69G8P78tjRaYx Xn8lg46K5P4idrUZS6IkkS+pzMCB9vYY8FGQfSg7hLVMiNpYrnjKm7kn7hyZiUdq2y BWd/zhc027n1peWUpo2qTHQhsXndtvvSJqDFHg8Y=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1389398365; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ub4ioPGg3hkaMnvxIgw+967Zv/hRHNEJdao9yyj0Jl0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=h3v5r+IDNzJpEeR0CTbEDm1miuX84/8Lp96UuA1Domi5BSJs6Hlg1SBhpUBthCuwk xusYDo3APKjbMOOlFRDDwpXbEc4EwijnqXpO+4VfKjnNgYVUd6doYCMioGaTW+c+8V kExyGPTDsPmMZAmuu6J1fO05rvvk+mpZoJkIfR8Y=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140110142955.0ac73048@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:57:23 -0800
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-06
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 23:59:38 -0000
Hi Henry, I have a few comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-06. In Section 3.1: "XML-unaware MIME producers MUST NOT supply a charset parameter with an XML MIME entity unless the entity's character encoding is reliably known." The title of that section is "XML MIME producers". The above states a (RFC 2119) requirement for a "XML-unaware MIME producer". Can an agent which is not capable of processing XML MIME entities and detecting the XML encoding declaration follow the requirement, and does the requirement even apply given that the requirements being specified are for XML MIME producers? As a nit, the unless clause in the requirement (sentence) seems odd. It may be simpler to set requirements for "XML-aware" MIME producers only. "XML MIME producers are RECOMMENDED to provide means for XML MIME entity authors to determine what value, if any, is given to charset parameters for their entities, for example by enabling user-level configuration of filename-to-Content-Type-header mappings on a file- by-file or suffix basis." The "entity authors" in the above is not clear. Is it a person or an agent? "The use of UTF-32 is NOT RECOMMENDED for XML MIME entities." I suggest having a short explanation about why the use of UTF-32 is not recommended instead of only saying that it is not recommended. "XML-aware consumers MUST follow the requirements in section 4.3.3 of [XML] that directly address this case." This is a requirement by reference to an external specification. I am listing this as it is unusual. "XML-unaware MIME consumers SHOULD NOT assume a default encoding in this case." Would a XML-unaware MIME consumer be following this specification? In Section 4.2: 'Interoperability considerations: XML has proven to be interoperable across both generic and task-specific applications and for import and export from multiple XML authoring and editing tools. Validating processors provide maximum interoperability. Although non-validating processors may be more efficient, they are not required to handle all features of XML. For further information, see sub-section 2.9 "Standalone Document Declaration" and section 5 "Conformance" of [XML].' The paragraph is about interoperability considerations. The text comes out as saying that "XML is great". :-) Are there any interoperability issues to consider? That's what the reader might wish to know. In Section 8.1: "Media subtypes that do not represent XML MIME entities MUST NOT be allowed to register with a '+xml' suffix." It would be easier to say that the "+xml" suffix can only be registered for media subtypes that represent XML MIME entities. Section 8.1 is about IANA registrations. I would read it as guidance for IANA and people requesting a registration. I suggest phrasing the relevant text from that perspective and moving that text into the IANA Considerations section. In Section 8.3: 'Registrations for new XML-based media types which do _not_ use the '+xml' suffix SHOULD, in specifying the charset parameter and encoding considerations, define them as: "Same as [charset parameter / encoding considerations] of application/xml as specified in RFC XXXX."' Why is this a RFC 2119 "should"? "These registrations SHOULD also make reference to RFC XXXX in specifying magic numbers, base URIs, and use of the BOM." I suggest rephrasing this as guidance and not as a RFC 2119 recommendation. Please note that I do not have a strong opinion about this as it may be a matter of style. "These registrations MAY reference the application/xml registration in RFC XXXX in specifying interoperability and fragment identifier considerations, if these considerations are not overridden by issues specific to that media type." Why is this a RFC 2119 "may"? I suggest moving the examples in Section 9 to an appendix. Regards, S. Moonesamy
- [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-xml… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg… Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg… S Moonesamy