Review requested for MusicXML media type proposals

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Mark Baker wrote:
>On 6/8/07, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi at gmx.net> wrote:
>> The point is that you said the proposal needs to be changed and that
>> .xml is not suitable for the proposed type. This is not backed by RFC
>> 4288, RFC 3023, or by consensus on the ietf-types list.
>
>I pointed out that at least one other media type registration switched
>from ".xml" to a media type specific file extension.  I think that
>demonstrates that it has been the concensus position of the list in
>the past.  On what basis do you claim that it is not?

That is invalid reasoning, one can easily hold that .xml is suitable for
types beyond those defined in RFC 3023 and that some types might or even
should use other extensions at the same time. Evidence that there is no
consensus that all +xml types must have an extension different from .xml
is easy to come by, take the registrations of these types for examples:

  * application/epp+xml
  * application/simple-filter+xml
  * application/conference-info+xml
  * application/dialog-info+xml
  * application/cpl+xml
  * application/watcherinfo+xml
  * application/reginfo+xml
  * application/vnd.avistar+xml
  * application/vnd.informedcontrol.rms+xml
  * ...

All of them cite .xml as only or alternate extension, the latest of them
being RFC 4930 which revises the application/epp+xml registration.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern at hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/