Re: draft-hoschka-smil-media-type vs +xml
Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> Mon, 12 December 2005 10:19 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 jBCAJKHd016515; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:19:20 -0800 (PST) (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 jBCAJKbc016514; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:19:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from homer.w3.org (homer.w3.org [128.30.52.30]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBCAJK90016507 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:19:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris@w3.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homer.w3.org (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 <chris@w3.org>
Reply-To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <741929376.20051212111929@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: ietf-types@alvestrand.no, www-smil@w3.org, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, ph@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-hoschka-smil-media-type vs +xml
In-Reply-To: <95gqp15vdac8vc0lrcitreer3odn9n3ns6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <95gqp15vdac8vc0lrcitreer3odn9n3ns6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 Monday, December 12, 2005, 10:27:14 AM, Bjoern wrote: BH> Hi, BH> BH> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoschka-smil-media-type-12.txt 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> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-SMIL2-20050927/ 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 and point out that application/smil is obsolete, assuming that the +xml BH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 registered. SMIL editors, the procedure to follow is given at http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html (and is supposed to start at last call, by the way) -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
- Re: draft-hoschka-smil-media-type vs +xml Chris Lilley
- draft-hoschka-smil-media-type vs +xml Bjoern Hoehrmann