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

"Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> Thu, 17 May 2007 19:18 UTC

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4HJIFZ9076665 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 May 2007 12:18:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l4HJIFFg076664; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:18:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from exprod6og52.obsmtp.com (exprod6og52.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.185]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id l4HJI9PV076608 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:18:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from LMM@acm.org)
Received: from source ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob52.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:18:08 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-3.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-3.adobe.com [192.150.20.198] (may be forged)) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l4HJH8D1008302; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fe2.corp.adobe.com (fe2.corp.adobe.com [10.8.192.72]) by inner-relay-3.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l4HJHU12027439; Thu, 17 May 2007 12:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from namail1.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.192.62]) by fe2.corp.adobe.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 17 May 2007 12:17:52 -0700
Received: from masinterlap06 ([153.32.47.39]) by namail1.corp.adobe.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 17 May 2007 12:17:52 -0700
From: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
To: "'Dave Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: <ietf-liaisons@ietf.org>, "'Christian Timmerer \(ITEC\)'" <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>, <ietf-types@alvestrand.no>, <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>
References: <E94B6002-BAE6-4D08-98A3-89E8D46504F3@stewe.org> <AE61ED01-9B91-4D5D-8654-AF8DD1B86EA2@stewe.org> <464814BE.4090208@ninebynine.org> <p06240821c26e59493bca@[17.202.35.52]> <4649B0BA.4040002@ninebynine.org> <p0624084bc26f9de750bc@[17.202.35.52]>
In-Reply-To: <p0624084bc26f9de750bc@[17.202.35.52]>
Subject: RE: MPEG asks for MIME review for the MPEG21 file format
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:17:50 -0700
Message-ID: <002901c798b8$0f9ab4f0$2ed01ed0$@org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AceXFrSyCZUpn5ZLREKwmvHQxnfksQBoCWmA
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2007 19:17:52.0269 (UTC) FILETIME=[1090FBD0:01C798B8]
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>

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
archive
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.

Larry