Re: Parameters for top-level XML media types?

[MURATA Makoto <murata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry Masinter wrote:
> > 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.

It appears that nobody think parameters  are good enough reasons for 
introducing a top-level media type "xml".  Thus, the only possible reason is:

> 	4. Document-like XML documents can be handled by general-purpose 
> 	   XML viewers

I do not think this is a good reason either.  XML browsers only have to 
examine the stylesheet PI and then invoke appropriate formatting engines.

Thus, I believe that there is no reason to introduce a top-level media type "xml".  
Have we reached a consensus here?

> 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.

If the charset parameter is not present, we cannot use negotiation 
of HTTP 1.1, which is already available.

Cheers,

Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx