Review requested for MusicXML media type proposals

[Mark Baker]

On 6/9/07, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi at gmx.net> wrote:
> 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.

It's obviously suitable, just as ".txt" is suitable for ASCII XML files.

> 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

Unfortunately, I didn't review those 8-)

Anyhow, it would be good if you could respond to my earlier comments
about message semantics.  Perhaps we can continue this on
ietf-xml-mime though, per Larry's email.

Mark.