Subject: [media-types] new media type proposed: draft-wilde-xml-patch-05

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:35:37 -0700

hello everybody.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch proposes a new media 
type application/xml-patch+xml, which defines an XML document structure 
for expressing a sequence of patch operations that are applied to an XML 
document. here's the registration template (copied from 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-05#section-4):

       Type name: application

       Subtype name: xml-patch+xml

       Required parameters: none

       Optional parameters: Same as charset parameter for the media type
       "application/xml" as specified in RFC 3023 [1].

       Encoding considerations: Same as encoding considerations of media
       type "application/xml" as specified in RFC 3023 [1].

       Security considerations: This media type has all of the security
       considerations described in RFC 3023 [1] and RFC 5261 [2], plus
       those listed in Section 5.

       Interoperability considerations: N/A

       Published specification: RFC XXXX

       Applications that use this media type: Applications that
       manipulate XML documents.

       Additional information:

          Magic number(s): N/A

          File extension(s): XML documents should use ".xml" as the file
          extension.

          Macintosh file type code(s): TEXT

       Person & email address to contact for further information: Erik
       Wilde <[email-masked]>

       Intended usage: COMMON

       Restrictions on usage: none

       Author: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>

       Change controller: IETF

any feedback or any comments would be greatly appreciated.

thanks a lot and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[email-masked]  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:26:38 +0200

>       "application/xml" as specified in RFC 3023 [1].

I think you need to rephrase that.

>          File extension(s): XML documents should use ".xml" as the file

I do not think there is a consensus to that effect.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:45:40 -0700

hello bjoern.

thanks for the feedback!

> I think you need to rephrase that.

you're referring to the fact that the charset parameter should be first 
listed, but then the sentence could remain the same, right? thanks for 
spotting this!

> I do not think there is a consensus to that effect.

so just suggest ".xml" as a possibility without making that claim? until 
now, there is no other extension to be proposed.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:53:06 +0200

>listed, but then the sentence could remain the same, right? thanks for 

That would work, yes.

>now, there is no other extension to be proposed.

That would work.

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:08:11 -0700

hello bjoern.

>> now, there is no other extension to be proposed.

done and done in 
https://github.com/dret/I-D/blob/master/xml-patch/draft-wilde-xml-patch-06.xml; 
i will wait a little while for more feedback about the published version 
-05, and if there is none, i will soon publish -06 in this updated form.

thanks and cheers,

dret.