Re: [xml-mime] [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-10-16 15:26, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> internet-drafts writes:
>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.  This draft is a work item of the Applications Area
>> Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>> 	Title           : XML Media Types
>> 	Author(s)       : Henry S. Thompson
>>                            Chris Lilley
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt
>> 	Pages           : 27
>> 	Date            : 2013-10-16
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     This specification standardizes three media types -- application/xml,
>>     application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd --
>>     for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the
>>     Extensible Markup Language (XML) while defining text/xml and text/
>>     xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective application/
>>     types.  This specification also standardizes the '+xml' suffix for
>>     naming media types outside of these five types when those media types
>>     represent XML MIME entities.
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03
>
> A thorough exposition of all comments received on the previous draft,
> and their resolution, is available at
>
>    http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html
>
> Many thanks to the commentators, particularly Julian Reschke and Erik
> Wilde, for careful reading and helpful input.
>
> An author-markup-based diff is available at
>
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03_diff.html
>
> This is much easier to read than the IETF auto-generated one.
>
> Please note in particular that a significant addition has been made to
> section 3.6 [1], to address the fact that the XML spec. itself defers
> to this spec. to define the precedence of charset parameter, BOM and
> XML encoding declaration.
>
> The key new paragraph reads:
>
>    All processors SHOULD treat a BOM (Section 4) as authoritative if it
>    is present in an XML MIME entity.  In the absence of a BOM (Section
>    4), all processors SHOULD treat the charset parameter as
>    authoritative.  Section 4.3.3 of the [XML] specification does _not_
>    make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding
>    declaration to be inconsistent.
>
> Comments on this section, and wider review, would be very welcome.
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03#section-3.6

I will probably have to re-read the new document to review what's left 
to do (please post a new draft early next week when ID submission re-opens).

One thing I noticed is that we now have informative references to 
HTTPbis, and normative references to RFC 2616. It should be the other 
way round (so the normative  refs should be updated for HTTPbis, and if 
they can't this might be a problem either in this spec or HTTPbis, in 
which case it needs to be reported ASAP due to IETF LC).

Best regards, Julian