Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM> Tue, 26 September 2000 13:46 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16160 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16156 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fastrack.Canada.Sun.COM ([129.155.6.10]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25729 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from canada.sun.com (seteo [129.155.190.61]) by fastrack.Canada.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id JAA19761 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:49:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39D0ABBF.1AA4C5EB@canada.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:59:27 -0400
From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
References: <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE0010598E2@tdmail2.teledesic.com> <4.2.0.58.J.20000926141535.009ca870@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
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>
"Martin J. Duerst" wrote: > I'm not sure I'm happy with this; defining a minimum that every > +xml type has to support would be very desirable in my eyes. > That's one of the ideas behind the +xml suffix, isn't it. > So how should this minimum look like? My understanding from Dan was that the cat's already out of the bag; SVG uses +xml. However, SVG isn't yet a W3C recommendation. According to http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG, SVG 1.0 is in CR as of August 2nd. This CR references a version of draft-murata-xml that used the "-xml" suffix, so that's what's used; http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#MIMEType Also, IANA shows that a MIME media type for SVG has not yet been registered. I think this means we have an opportunity to guarantee *something* about fragment identifiers. Here's some options I've come up with. Each of them has drawbacks, but hopefully those involved with SVG can weigh that against the future cost of not having a consistent fragment identifier notation on +xml media types. 1. leave the SVG MIME media type as-is with "-xml" so it user agents don't expect the rules of "+xml" to hold. I don't believe that this is a great loss for SVG because it's an image/ type, not text/ or application/ about which encoding rules are defined. Or just change it to image/svg. 2. remove that section (1.2) from the spec (as we did with XHTML 1.0, so we could add it later). 3. break out and document your subset of XPointer so that draft-murata-xml can reference it Any other options? Chris? MB
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? muraw3c
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Mark Baker
- Re: XPointer scheme names (was Re: Conformance va… Martin J. Duerst
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Tim Bray
- XPointer scheme names (was Re: Conformance value … Eve L. Maler
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Simon St.Laurent
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Chris Lilley
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Simon St.Laurent
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Mark Baker
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Martin J. Duerst
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Chris Lilley
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Mark Baker
- RE: Conformance value of "+xml"? Dan Kohn
- Conformance value of "+xml"? Mark Baker