Review requested for MusicXML media type proposals

[Mark Baker]

On 6/7/07, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi at gmx.net> wrote:
> * Mark Baker wrote:
> >Disagree. For the vast majority of server configurations, ".xml" maps
> >to one of those three types, and would therefore pretty much guarantee
> >the mislabelling of many MusicXML files.
>
> Using application/xml or text/xml for XML documents is no mislabeling;
> using text/plain or application/octet-stream on the other hand is, and
> most servers would use one of those types or some other incorrect type
> if they don't recognize the extension.

Well, the point is that if you had two HTTP messages with the same
body, but one with application/vnd.recordare.musicxml+xml and the
other with application/xml, those messages mean two different things.
text/plain would mean something different than those two messages.
Only with application/vnd.recordare.musicxml+xml is there an
authoritative, publicly specified (self-descriptive) path from the
HTTP message to the MusicXML specification, and therefore that's the
only message that means "interpret this as MusicXML".

Mark.