Re: draft-hoschka-smil-media-type vs +xml

Chris Lilley <> Mon, 12 December 2005 10:19 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBCAJKHd016515; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:19:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBCAJKbc016514; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:19:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: majordom set sender to using -f
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBCAJK90016507 for <>; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:19:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A8F4F2F2; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:19:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:19:29 +0100
From: Chris Lilley <>
Reply-To: Chris Lilley <>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
Subject: Re: draft-hoschka-smil-media-type vs +xml
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <>
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On Monday, December 12, 2005, 10:27:14 AM, Bjoern wrote:

BH> Hi,

BH> is a bit old by now, but I don't think application/smil should be COMMON
BH> as it does not use the +xml convention for XML media types. Instead, it
BH> should be OBSOLETE and application/smil+xml, defined in the same draft,
BH> should be used instead.

BH> only has application/smil
BH> (which is not currently registered), it should use application/smil+xml
BH> and point out that application/smil is obsolete, assuming that the +xml
BH> version will be registered in the not too distant future.

Thanks for spotting this, Björn. I suspect it was copied over from SMIL
2.0 which predates the +xml convention. I agree that
application/smil+xml should be the preferred type and should be

SMIL editors, the procedure to follow is given at

(and is supposed to start at last call, by the way)

 Chris Lilley          
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG