RE: Parameters for top-level XML media types?

["Larry Masinter" <masinter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> - the version of XML,

Not any more than Postscript 1 and Postscript 2 having separate versions.

> - the version of Unicode,

Not for any other text type, why for XML?

> - how the Private Use Area (PUA) of Unicode is used 
> 	[Rick Jelliffe wrote: "This also could have bearing on the PUA 
> 	(private use area) character problem, and the problem of corporate 
> 	character sets (e.g. Hong Kong's GCCS)."]

Using Private Use Area in Unicode is tantamount to using a private
charset.

Suggestion:
 a) eliminate text/xml
 b) eliminate 'charset' parameter from application/xml
     The charset is self-identifying. If there is a PUA in use,
     then it must be declared in the head of the XML body.
     Having PUAs in your charset is like having a private use
     font.

> - which conversion table (Note: for a given CCS, more than one conversion 
>   table may exist),
> - which schema language is used (DTD or the upcoming schema language 
> from W3C),
> - which stylesheet (XSL, CSS, DSSSL, etc.) is used, and
> - other issues mentioned in my mail "List of issues".
> 
> Does anybody think that some of them are good enough reasons for introducing 
> top-level XML media types?  (I am just asking.)

These are good reasons for making sure that this information is
self-identified in the head of the XML body.