FW: [xri-comment] RE: XRDS media type

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>]

We can continue as planned.

EHL

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 6:06 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Subject: Re: [xri-comment] RE: XRDS media type

Hi Eran,

No, not per OASIS rules. It's neither required nor prohibited.

Mary






On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> The question is: do we have to include the IANA form in the spec itself? We prefer not to.
> 
> EHL
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 5:36 PM
>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> Subject: Re: [xri-comment] RE: XRDS media type
>> 
>> It must be filed by OASIS. If you send it to me I will forward it on.
>> 
>> Mary
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> 
>>> Mary,
>>> 
>>> Can you please advise how to handle the media type registration?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> EHL
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathan Rees [mailto:jar@creativecommons.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 5:03 PM
>>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>>> Subject: Re: [xri-comment] RE: XRDS media type
>>> 
>>> I think the style now preferred by IETF is to include the media type
>> registration as a section in the spec that defines the syntax and 
>> semantics of that file type. E.g. see the http: URI scheme 
>> registration in RFC 2616, and the draft text/html media type registration in the draft HTML(5) spec.
>>> 
>>> IETF has a list of organizations that are trusted to do this, and 
>>> W3C is one of
>> them. Don't know about OASIS.
>>> 
>>> I don't know the 'chapter and verse' for this, but you might want to check.
>>> 
>>> FWIW.
>>> 
>>> Jonathan
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>>>> We decided to drop the appendix and deal with this issue when we 
>>>> register the media type. This way the spec can move forward.
>>>> 
>>>> EHL
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Manger, James H [mailto:James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 6:21 PM
>>>> To: xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; jaredhanson@gmail.com
>>>> Subject: [xri-comment] XRDS media type
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> XRD v1.0 CD02 defines the "application/xrd+xml" media type.
>>>> 
>>>> Presumably this can be used when the content is an <XRD> element.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The doc also defines an <XRDS> element.
>>>> 
>>>> Is the same media type supposed to be used when the content is an 
>>>> <XRDS> element?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I notice there is some work (outside OASIS) on "XRD Provisioning"
>>>> (http://xrdprovisioning.net/).
>>>> 
>>>> Draft 01 of that work reuses "application/xrd+xml" when the content 
>>>> is a <Link> element.
>>>> 
>>>> This must be wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Atom [RFC 4287] defines "application/atom+xml" for both 
>>>> <atom:entry> and <atom:feed> documents.
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect that is now considered a poor (but irreversible) choice.
>>>> 
>>>> The subsequent Atom Publishing Protocol [RFC 5023, section 12] 
>>>> defines a "type" parameter to go with the media type to distinguish 
>>>> the two type of
>>>> document: "application/atom+xml;type=entry" and 
>>>> "application/atom+xml;type=feed".
>>>> 
>>>> The APP spec says:
>>>> 
>>>>  "The Atom Syndication Format [RFC4287] defines the "application/
>>>> 
>>>>   atom+xml" media type to identify both Atom Feed and Atom Entry
>>>> 
>>>>   Documents.  Implementation experience has demonstrated that Atom 
>>>> Feed
>>>> 
>>>>   and Entry Documents can have different processing models and that
>>>> 
>>>>   there are situations where they need to be differentiated.  This
>>>> 
>>>>   specification defines a "type" parameter used to differentiate 
>>>> the
>>>> 
>>>>   two types of Atom documents."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> An <atom:feed> is basically a collection of <atom:entry>s, hence 
>>>> the strong analogy to <XRDS> and <XRD>.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> My suggestions, from most preferred to least:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Define separate media types for <XRDS> and <XRD> -- I suspect it 
>>>> will be helpful in the long run (as per Atom/APP experience).
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Add a sentence to the spec explicitly stating that the 
>>>> "application/xrd+xml" media type can be used for both <XRDS> and
>> <XRD>.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Wait until it is needed then define a type parameter as per APP.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> James Manger
>>>> 
>>>> 
>