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

Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> Sun, 20 May 2007 23:02 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 l4KN2bHW042843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 20 May 2007 16:02:37 -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 l4KN2bMP042842; Sun, 20 May 2007 16:02:37 -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 homer.w3.org (homer.w3.org [128.30.52.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4KN2U2B042680 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Sun, 20 May 2007 16:02:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from chris@w3.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homer.w3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1F94F016; Sun, 20 May 2007 19:02:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 02:24:11 +0200
From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.95.6) Home
Reply-To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Organization: W3C
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <179633441.20070520022411@w3.org>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "'Dave Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, <ietf-liaisons@ietf.org>, "'Christian Timmerer (ITEC)'" <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>, <ietf-types@alvestrand.no>, <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>
Subject: Re: MPEG asks for MIME review for the MPEG21 file format
In-Reply-To: <op.tsidc6yf64w2qv@annevk.hotspot.sfr.fr>
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]> <002901c798b8$0f9ab4f0$2ed01ed0$@org> <892351513.20070518031209@w3.org> <op.tsidc6yf64w2qv@annevk.hotspot.sfr.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>

On Friday, May 18, 2007, 7:54:32 AM, Anne wrote:

AvK> On Fri, 18 May 2007 03:12:09 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>; wrote:
>> The successor to RFC 3023 needs to indicate that binary XML which is  
>> presented as a new encoding (in the xml sense) can use +xml, while other  
>> binary forms cannot.

AvK> You wouldn't be able to still parse the retrieved resource in that case
AvK> with a generic XML parser. Wasn't that the whole idea of +xml?

Swapping your sentences around: yes, the whole idea of +xml is that you know you can use a generic XML parser.

Something that might or might not be xml, therefore should not use +xml.

An XML parser must understand UTF-8 and UTF-16 and may understand other encodings. I gather that the Efficient XML folks will declare a new encoding, and parsers which don't know it will not parse it. Same is if I said the encoding was

encoding="i-bet-you-never-heard-of-this-one"


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG