Re: [xml-mime] [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> I've produced a new draft, with only one (moderately large) change,
> agreed in discussion with my fellow editor Chris Lilley.  I've missed
> the official cutoff for publishing new drafts before Berlin, so please
> see

>   http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-04.html#charset
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-04_diff.html#charset

The new charset material looks fine to me.

> for substantial clarifications to the rework of Section 3.6 _Charset
> considerations_ given in version -03.

> Any existing reviewing work on any _other_ section based on version
> -03 is still relevant, as no other section has changed in any
> significant way.

> Note also accordingly that the diffs in the above -04_diff.html are
> still against version -02.

A few additional comments, all fairly minor.

In section 3, there are a couple of places where it says "The media types
application/xml and text/xml MUST NOT be used". Would it make sense to
include the +xml suffix as something that MUST NOT be used?

The material at the end of Section 9.2 is arguably a little too important
to relegate to an example. The obvious place to move it would be to Section
3.2.

Ther probably should be a pointer at the end of Section 3.6 to the examples
in Section 9.

There's a missing period on the last sentence of Section 9.8.

The IANA Considerations in Section 10 need to list the types being registered
here.

That's it!

				Ned