MIME-type for XLIFF

["Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>]

Hi there,

I see some usage scenarios for having a MIME-type registered for XLIFF. From an exchange between Asgeir and Friedel related to it (see
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200802/msg00011.html), I figured that the we would be looking at something like (quote from aforementioned exchange):

	Unless (and until) the mime type is registered with IANA [1], it should 
	probably be written as "application/x-xliff+xml".

I have two questions related to this:

1. What are your views on possible optional or mandatory parameters such as the ones below?

	a. version (e.g. 'version="1.2"') 
		for the XLIFF version (patterned after the "level" in http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/vnd.wap-wml)
	b. 'originating-tool (e.g. 'originating-tool="tool"')
		for the XLIFF variant _produced_ by a certain tool (e.g. a certain Content Management System or Computer-Assistant Translation tool)
	c. source-only (e.g. 'source-only="yes"')
		for XLIFF which does not yet contain a "target" element

	With this, we would get to XLIFF-related content types such as

		application/x-xliff+xml;version="1.2";originating-tool="XLIFFCentral-Version0.9";source-only="yes"

	Note: It would be great if we would refrain from a discussion along the lines of "We don't need for example an 'originating-tool' since
		any tool that produces or consumes XLIFF should work with any XLIFF variant". From my understanding, the First
		XLIFF Symposium in Limerick (see http://www.localisation.ie/xliff/) has provided evidence for the fact that statements
		like this would not reflect the current reality. Of course, the statement is a goal we want to reach in the end.

2. What are your views on preparing registration as a MIME-type by providing a filled in registration template (see the filled in template for the W3C Internationalization Tag Set as example at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2009Jul/0011.html).

Best regards,
Christian