Subject: Yet more on APPLICATION/IOTP

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:34:15 -0500

There continues to be an incredible blizzard of messages on the
ietf-types mailing list about whether "-xml" suffixes or the like on
MIME types is good or bad, etc.  In general, the weight of the
argument seems to be in favor of this...  So the question is would
changing to application/iotp-xml be a hardship on current
implementations and implementation efforts?  (Early efforts used
APPLICATION/X-IOTP.)

Also, it turns out that Section F of the XML spec has been changed.
External charset indications, such as an optional charset Content-Type
parameter, if present, over-ride and internal indication of character
encoding in XML, as specified in Informational RFC 2376.  So if there
is an optional charset option, which is probably a good idea, then
when present, it should over-riode any encoding specification
appearing before the XML document unless we wnat to be non-standard...

Donald

------- Forwarded Message

Date:  Thu, 09 Mar 2000 23:49:47 -0500
From:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  More on APPLICATION/IOTP
To:  [email-masked]
Message-id:  <[email-masked]>

The MIME type registartion template I posted to the ietf-types list
has caused a lot of comment.  None of it is really about IOTP, it
is all about two issues:
(1) should it really be APPLICATION/IOTP-XML
and
(2) should it allow/require a charset parameter

That is, people are arguing about whether all new XML content MIME
types should have a subtype with a "-xml" on the end.  I would
assume we don't want to change due to existing implementations.

On the charset paramter issue, I think I should add it as an
optional parameter.  Section F of the XML 1.0 specification makes
it clear that the charset as indicated by the actual data
including any byte order mark and encoding declaration and that
any "external" charset, as the charset parameter would be, is
"solely for error recovery."

Thanks,
donald
=====================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                      [email-masked]
 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1                     +1 914-276-2668(h)
 Carmel, NY 10512 USA                             +1 508-261-5434(w)

------- End of Forwarded Message

--JAA02481.953649127/torque.pothole.com--

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: "Smith, Chris " <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:55:04 -0500

Call me conservative on this one - since there was not yet a formal
decision on the matter, we have continued to use APPLICATION/X-IOTP
even for IOTP 1.0 (which also is not returned from the editor's desk
with an RFC number).

I realize that I should probably join the ietf-types mailing list
to find this out, but ... is there any ideas on an alternate way
besides modifying the actual MIME type to indicate that XML is in
use?

If there were, I would prefer...

   APPLICATION/IOTP
   ...with a charset parameter
   ...with an encoding or markup parameter

The other alternative - a really big one, at that - would be
to use:

   XML/IOTP
   ...with a charset parameter

..to my mind, this better captures the actual idea of what is
happening here. This is much the same as using IMAGE/ or TEXT/
where the /xxx "sub-describes" the higher level item.

------------------------------------------------------------ 
 Chris Smith                                +1.416.348.6090 
 Royal Bank                       [email-masked] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: March 21, 2000 09:34 AM
> Subject: Yet more on APPLICATION/IOTP
> 
> 
>