RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml
Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com> Tue, 24 October 2000 16:53 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07373 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgate-01.teledesic.com (mgate-01.teledesic.com [216.190.22.41]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07369 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by MGATE-01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <VPSP9JBD>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:59:02 -0700
Message-ID: <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE00105A154@tdmail2.teledesic.com>
From: Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>
To: bxxpwg@invisibleworlds.com
Cc: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:58:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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>
Marshall, my only question is whether some of the Security Considerations of <http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml> additionally apply. Since you are prohibiting the use of external entities, you avoid most of the risks, however there is still the possibility of someone parsing the data with a standard XML processor. Also, you might explicitly want to mention whether this type follows RFC 2376bis's advice on use of the BOM (section 4), XPointer syntax (section 5), and Base URI (section 6). Or, you could just leave these things undefined. Thanks. - dan -- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> <http://www.dankohn.com> <tel:+1-650-327-2600> -----Original Message----- From: Marshall Rose [mailto:mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, 2000-10-24 08:21 To: bxxpwg@invisibleworlds.com Cc: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us Subject: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml hi. after review, it looks like application/beep+xml is probably the better choice. unless folks believe otherwise, here is what i propose to add to the draft. please comment. thanks, /mtr ps: naturally, the examples will all change to use this media type instead of text/xml ####### 6.4 Registration: application/beep+xml MIME media type name: application MIME subtype name: beep+xml Required parameters: none Optional parameters: charset (defaults to "UTF-8"[RFC 2279]) Encoding considerations: always use binary Security considerations: none, per se; however, any BEEP profile which uses this media type must describe its relevant security considerations Interoperability considerations: n/a Published specification: This media type is a proper subset of the the XML 1.0 specification[2]. Two restrictions are made. First, no entity references other than the five predefined general entities references ("&", "<", ">", "'", and """) and numeric entity references may be present. Second, neither the "XML" declaration (e.g., <?xml version="1.0" ?>) nor the "DOCTYPE" declaration (e.g., <!DOCTYPE ...>) may be present. (Accordingly, if another character set other than UTF-8 is desired, then the "charset" parameter must be present.) All other XML 1.0 instructions (e.g., CDATA blocks, processing instructions, and so on) are allowed. Applications which use this media type: any BEEP profile wishing to make use of this XML 1.0 subset Additional Information: none Contact for further information: c.f., the "Author's Address" section of this memo Intended usage: limited use Author/Change controller: the IESG _______________________________________________ BXXPwg mailing list BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg
- RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml Dan Kohn
- Re: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml Marshall Rose
- RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml Dan Kohn
- RE: [BXXPwg] Re: application/beep+xml Dan Kohn
- Re: application/beep+xml Tim Bray
- RE: application/beep+xml Dan Kohn
- Re: application/beep+xml Marshall Rose
- application/beep+xml Dan Kohn