This is a comment against the XBL2 last call WD.
I believe the spec needs a media type, if only because the TAG recommends it[1]. That finding links to a document[2] which describes two possible registration procedures. I suggest the group follow the "new procedure" because it avoids duplication of normative text between multiple specifications (the XBL spec & a would-be registration RFC) and independent standards organizations (W3C and IETF). Attached is a template you can start with, which assumes the new procedure. Cheers, [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html Mark. ======== Appendix A Type name: application Subtype name: xbl+xml Required parameters: none Optional parameters: charset This parameter has identical semantics to the charset parameter of the "application/xml" media type as specified in [XMLMIME]. Encoding considerations: By virtue of XBL content being XML, it has the same considerations when sent as 'application/xbl+xml' as does XML. See [XMLMIME], section 3.2. Security considerations: See section 1.3 of this specification. In addition, because XBL is XML, the security considerations for XML itself apply; see [XMLMIME] section 10. Interoperability considerations: There are no known interoperability considerations beyond those for XML itself. See section 3.1 of [XMLMIME]. Published specification: This document. Applications which use this media type: None at this point in time. Additional information: Magic number: none File extensions: xbl2 Macintosh File Type code: TEXT Fragment identifiers: @@@ I'm not sure - sec 3.4 doesn't seem to cover that case Person & email address to contact for further information: Ian Hickson, Google. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (@@@ somebody else?) Intended usage: COMMON Author/Change controller: The XBL specification is a work product of the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Application Formats Working Group. The W3C has change control over this specification.
