RE: MPEG asks for MIME review for the MPEG21 file format

Martin Duerst <> Fri, 18 May 2007 10:28 UTC

Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4IASUUK008956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 May 2007 03:28:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l4IASUAi008955; Fri, 18 May 2007 03:28:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: majordom set sender to using -f
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4IASRMe008947 for <>; Fri, 18 May 2007 03:28:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Received: from (scmse1 []) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id l4IASQNd029493 for <>; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:28:26 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ( by via smtp id 41b1_83501a46_052a_11dc_9330_0014221fa3c9; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:28:25 +0900
Received: from ([]:55149) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <SA4B38> for <> from <>; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:26:54 +0900
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:31:02 +0900
To: "Larry Masinter" <>, "'Dave Singer'" <>, "'Graham Klyne'" <>
From: Martin Duerst <>
Subject: RE: MPEG asks for MIME review for the MPEG21 file format
Cc:,, "'Christian Timmerer (ITEC)'" <>,
In-Reply-To: <002901c798b8$0f9ab4f0$2ed01ed0$@org>
References: <> <> <> <p06240821c26e59493bca@[]> <> <p0624084bc26f9de750bc@[]> <002901c798b8$0f9ab4f0$2ed01ed0$@org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <>
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

I fully agree with Larry's interpretation of RFC 3023 and his
comment on this proposal. "is XML" and "contains XML" are
two different things, and the "+xml" suffix is only for
the "is XML" case.

Regards,    Martin.

At 04:17 07/05/18, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I believe the +xml suffix should be reserved for media types whose content
>can be
>parsed without any preprocessing by a generic XML parser. A reply
>from David Singer indicated that the proposed MPEG 21file format is "binary
>and contains within it either XML text or BiM-encoded XML (like a ZIP
>with an XML document as the main document.)"
>In that case, the use of +xml would (IMO) be inappropriate.
>I thought this was clear form RFC 3023, but perhaps not.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University