Review solicited for application/cellml-1.0+xml and application/cellml-1.1+xml

[Andrew Miller]

Hi all,

I have produced a revised Internet draft,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-miller-media-type-cellml-01.txt,
following the earlier draft for the registration of application/cellml+xml
reviewed on this list.

This draft replaces the MIME type being registered, application/cellml+xml, with
two MIME types application/cellml-1.0+xml and application/cellml-1.1+xml, based
on the recommendations of several ietf-types list members. While CellML
versions are not substantially different from each other in terms of the XML
element localNames, the changes between 1.0 and 1.1(and likely any future
versions) will make backwards compatibility for impossible for most, if not all,
CellML processing tools. As such, a new media type for each version is
justified. Similarly, the version parameter and the section on determining the
version from the XML has been dropped. Both versions of the CellML
specification are now referenced as normative references.

There was a recommendation on the list that a file extension other than .xml be
used for CellML files. This has been discussed with the CellML community on the
CellML mailing list, and at the last (and earlier) CellML meetings. However, the
consensus was that we should keep the convention of using .xml, as this is
currently in wide use. A lot of CellML content currently being served is done
by scripts, which can arbitrarily set the MIME type. Most other CellML content
served over HTTP would be in its own directory, and so mechanisms like
.htaccess(or content based type determination) supported by most popular
webservers will be available. In addition, it is probably better that existing
software be able to at least determine that it is an XML file, and so using an
XML extension will result in text/xml or application/xml. As such, the section
on File extension(s) has been left unchanged.

Due to the fact that the names of MIME types have changed, I am restarting the
two-week review period from today. If there are no new objections, I will
submit the document for IESG approval on the 25th April, 2006.

Please Note: cellml-discussion at cellml.org is a public list for the CellML
community, but only accepts postings from list members. I am on the
cellml-types mailing list, and will forward any responses posted there to the
cellml-discussion list.

Best regards,
Andrew Miller


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.