Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03

[Julian Reschke]

Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 12:32:08 PM, Anne wrote:
> 
> AvK> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:28:29 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris at w3.org> wrote:
>>> The troublesome text is in section 4.1. Text Media Type  of RFC 2046
> 
>>>   The canonical form of any MIME "text" subtype MUST always represent
>>>   a line break as a CRLF sequence. Similarly, any occurrence of CRLF
>>>   in MIME "text" MUST represent a line break. Use of CR and LF outside
>>>   of line break sequences is also forbidden.
> 
>>>   This rule applies regardless of format or character set or sets
>>>   involved.
> 
>>> Clearly, that is incompatible with UTF-16, one of the two mandatory
>>> encodings for XML.
> 
> AvK> Plenty of other formats violate this rule too. Formats like HTML and CSS.
> AvK> It seems that if the Web's more successful formats all violate this rule
> AvK> in practice, we should fix the rule. Rough consensus and running code,
> AvK> right?
> 
> Hi Anne,
> 
> It was with you in mind that I added a question at the end of the internet draft
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03.html#anchor44
> 
> A.16.  Why not redefine text/xml instead of deprecating it
> 
> Since many XML processors do not follow RFC 3023 (they treat the xml encoding declaration as authoritative) it has been suggested that text/xml be redefined to follow the same behavior as application/xml in this specification. However, this pragmatic solution would not be compatible with the definition of the text/* type for non-HTTP transports. 
> 
> 
> So, yes, it would be a pragmatic solution. If you want to fix this, then you would need to write an internet draft which would obsolete  RFC 2046. I suggest talking to Ned Freed if you want to take that on.

So how about changing it just for the HTTP transport then?

BR, Julian