IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Fwd: Last Call: XML Media Types to Proposed Standard

ned.freed@INNOSOFT.COM Thu, 07 September 2000 15:57 UTC

Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21187 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21183 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 08:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned.freed@INNOSOFT.COM
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01JTVEKTKSB4000BHR@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-xml-mime@imc.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2000 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 08:56:12 -0700
Subject: RE: Fwd: Last Call: XML Media Types to Proposed Standard
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 07 Sep 2000 23:30:37 +0900 (JST)" <20000907233037M.muraw3c@attglobal.net>
To: muraw3c@attglobal.net
Cc: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, iesg@ietf.org
Message-id: <01JTVWKHO4SK000BHR@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE0AE5379@tdmail2.teledesic.com> <NDBBKEBDLFENBJCGFOIJAEEFDGAA.masinter@attlabs.att.com> <NDBBKEBDLFENBJCGFOIJAEEFDGAA.masinter@attlabs.att.com>
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>

> In the IETF-XML-MIME ML, Larry Masinter made proposed to slightly
> revise the latest draft (draft-murata-xml-07.txt).  Dave Peterson
> agreed.

> >    For backward compatibility, application/xml and text/xml MAY,
> >    but SHOULD NOT, also be used for "external parsed entities",
> >    "external DTD subsets", and "external parameter entities".

> > I don't think "MAY but SHOULD NOT" is a valid state in RFC 2119
> > terminology, or called for. How about:

> >   application/xml and text/xml MUST NOT be used for "external parsed
> >   entities", "external DTD subsets", and "external parameter entities".
> >   Note that RFC 2376 (obsoleted) allowed this usage, although
> >   in practice it is likely to be rare.

> I spoke with my co-authors: Dan Kohn and Simon St. Laurent.  We
> have agreed to accept the proposed change.

Sounds fine to me. Please submit an updated version of the draft.
Unfortunately, given that this is a change to requirements language I think
we'll have to restart the last call, so the sooner the better on this.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email