Internet draft for sbml+xml media type

[ben at morrow.me.uk ([e-mail])]

Your (Ben Kovitz) mail at 12pm on  8/10/03 said:
> Hi, I've just submitted an Internet Draft for the sbml+xml media 
> type.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sbml-media-type-00.txt 

Would it not be advantageous to have 'level' and 'version' parameters,
for situations where the SBML entity will need to be retreived and a
user-agent will need to decide if it would be able to process it?

Ben Morrow
>From [e-mail]  Thu Oct  9 22:04:57 2003
From: chris at w3.org (Chris Lilley)
Date: Thu Oct  9 21:05:27 2003
Subject: Internet draft for sbml+xml media type
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, 9:42:04 PM, Ben wrote:


BK> Hi, I've just submitted an Internet Draft for the sbml+xml media 
BK> type.  I and the other folks responsible for SBML (the Systems 
BK> Biology Markup Langage) have incorporated the comments and 
BK> suggestions from the folks on this list, especially getting a 
BK> definite, persistent, named organization in place to serve as 
BK> the change owner. 
 
BK> The draft is here: 
 
BK> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sbml-media-type-00.txt 
 
BK> Your comments are solicited. 
 
Do the existing SBML-consuming tools honor the charset parameter when
SBML is sent over HTTP or email?  And where the charset parameter
disagrees with the encoding in the XMl encoding declaration, do these
tools rewrite the XML when saving it to disk?

Note that, although charset is optional in this registration, RFC 3023
still imposes requirements on software in the *absence* of a charset.

If not, I suggest removing this optional parameter as follows:


     There is no charset parameter. Character handling has identical
     semantics to the case where the charset parameter of the
     "application/xml" media type is omitted, as described in [RFC3023].



-- 
 Chris                            mailto:[e-mail]