Re: Registration of media type FO and ZFO

At 03:01 08/06/10, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* Jakub Hytka wrote:
>>Thanks for the suggestions Frank. I added some information under 
>>published specification to describe both media types.
>>We still want to keep the vnd.software602.filler.xml+form and 
>>vnd.software602.filler.xml+zip+form subtypes, because they are highly 
>>descriptive in our opinion. Is this a important issue to be considered?
>>
>>Here follows the updated registration proposal:
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>---FO---
>>
>> Type name: application
>>
>> Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+form
>>
>> Required parameters: None
>>
>> Optional parameters: None
>>
>> Encoding considerations: UTF-8
>>
>> Security considerations: FO is a XML-based plain text format, secured 
>>by signing the file itself through the means of the XML Signature standard.
>
>See RFC 4288 on the possible values for the Encoding considerations. I
>am not sure what kind of format you have. Could application/xml also be
>used instead of vnd.software602.filler.xml+form, i.e., are these simply
>XML documents with a special type, or is there some special encoding
>that makes them non-XML without additional decoding? If they are XML,
>then I would advise to reference RFC 3023 for encoding considerations,
>and add the optional 'charset' parameter, and consider calling the type
>e.g. vnd.software602.filler.form+xml.

Very much so indeed. The current subtype name is highly unclear,
and if it's indeed XML, then +xml should be last.
"because they are highly descriptive" is really a non-starter.
The +xml suffix is highly descriptive, the +form 'suffix' is
completely undefined.

Regards,    Martin

>By the way, your first message in this thread sounded like this is not
>the first time you send the proposal, if that is so, please note that I
>could not find a previous message from you in the archive.
>
>> Additional information:
>>
>>   Magic number(s): NONE
>>   File extension(s): FO
>>   Macintosh file type code(s): -
>
>I would advise against using this extension, I believe it is in common
>use for XSL FO already.
>
>> Type name: application
>> Subtype name: Vendor Tree - vnd.software602.filler.xml+zip+form
>> Required parameters: None
>> Optional parameters: None
>> Encoding considerations: UTF-8
>
>Please see above for the encoding considerations. Perhaps you should re-
>fer to the application/zip registration here.
>
>> Additional information:
>>
>>   Magic number(s): NONE
>>   File extension(s): FO
>>   Macintosh file type code(s): -
>
>Same as above.
>-- 
>Bj$B‹S(Bn H$B‹I(Brmann $B%-(B mailto:bjoern <at> hoehrmann.de $B%-(B http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
>Weinh. Str. 22 $B%-(B Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 $B%-(B http://www.bjoernsworld.de
>68309 Mannheim $B%-(B PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 $B%-(B http://www.websitedev.de/ 

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp