Re: The role of media types for XML content

Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> Tue, 14 June 2005 15:40 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j5EFeesM036695; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:40:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j5EFeeS0036693; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from homer.w3.org ([128.30.52.30]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j5EFec0v036685 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:40:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chris@w3.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homer.w3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFFA4EF7B; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:40:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:40:33 +0200
From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Reply-To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Organization: W3C
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <187486099.20050614174033@w3.org>
To: MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: Re: The role of media types for XML content
In-Reply-To: <20050614232431.C56F.MURATA@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
References: <20050611154009.266D.MURATA@hokkaido.email.ne.jp> <20050613152513.GF20401@markbaker.ca> <20050614232431.C56F.MURATA@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-xml-mime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-xml-mime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, 4:47:40 PM, MURATA wrote:


Mark>> >And do you want to specify a 
Mark>> > specialized media type when you reference the embedded RNG?
Mark>> 
Mark>> Ideally, yes, I think that would be valuable for the reasons I gave
Mark>> before concerning layering and security.
Mark>> 
Mark>>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/
Mark>>  [2] http://www.markbaker.ca/2004/01/XmlDispatchTest/

MM> You propose to use a specialized media type for a fragment and 
MM> to use a different media type for the entire resource.  It is a very
MM> interesting idea.  It might help the marriage between media types and
MM> multi-namespace XML documents.  But I do not think that MIME RFCs or
MM> URI/IRI RFCs bless it (at least now).  Media types have been intended
MM> as values of the content-type field of MIME.  

MM> You might want to raise this issue in the W3C CDF WG or W3C TAG, and
MM> you might even want to write an RFC that updates MIME RFCs or URI/IRI
MM> RFCs.

his is interesting, and speculative, future work. However, and not
distracting from the original specific issue:

MM> However, unless such significant changes are endorsed, I continue 
MM> to be very reluctant to register a specialized media type for 
MM> the RELAX NG XML syntax.

I don't see how the issue of how/whether to point to a portion of an xml
resource which happens to be in RNG, has *any* bearing on the issue of
what media type to use when RNG is served as a stand-alone document,
which is by far the typical case at the moment. There is no dependency
there.

MM> After all, it is ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 that is requesting the
MM> registartion of a media type for the RELAX NG compact syntax. In its
MM> last meeting, SC34 decided to request this media type, but did not
MM> consider a specialized media type for the RELAX NG XML syntax.


So, now I am asking them to consider it. Will you convey this request to
them, or do I need to convey it by a more formal mechanism?

MM>  Since we are talking about
MM> media types in the standard tree, the media type for the RNG compact
MM> syntax can go to the IESG but that for the RNG XML syntax cannot.

I don't follow your last point there.




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead