Review requested for MusicXML media type proposals

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Mark Baker wrote:
>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".

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. There are in-
deed good arguments to pick a different extension, and there are good
arguments against doing that. It's fine to present arguments for either
approach and express personal preferences, but claiming requirements
where there are none is not.
-- 
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/