RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml
Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com> Tue, 24 October 2000 17:32 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08741 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:32:25 -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 KAA08737 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by MGATE-01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <VPSP9JFK>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:38:08 -0700
Message-ID: <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE00105A155@tdmail2.teledesic.com>
From: Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>
To: Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Cc: bxxpwg@invisibleworlds.com, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:38:01 -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>
I'm not quite sure it's correct that these issues don't arise with XML 1.0 (although I agree life will be easier if it is true). Issues regarding the BOM are rife with XML 1.0 because UTF-16 is a recommended charset, and beep supports its use. RFC 2396 defines that the semantics of a fragment identifier are a property of the data resulting from the retrieval action, so arguably RFC 2048 should be updated to have MIME registrations explicitly define those semantics. You can leave them undefined, but there is some value from supporting XPointer. XML Base is an optional enhancement for XML 1.0 that can change the interpretation of relative URLs. You can support it, explicitly not support it (by outlawing relative URL), or leave it undefined. So, again, feel free to ignore; I just wanted to make sure the issues are clear. - 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 10:13 To: Dan Kohn Cc: bxxpwg@invisibleworlds.com; ietf-xml-mime@imc.org; mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us Subject: Re: [BXXPwg] application/beep+xml > 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. hi. i think you're missing the point. the particular subset listed there excludes all of the things you are mentioning. they aren't in the 1.0 specification. hence the addition text you request is redundant. that's sort of the whole point. /mtr
- 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