Re: application/xml in ietf-xml-guidelines

Mark Baker wrote:

> I just had a look at draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-01, and
> saw this;
> 
>   "The "application/xml" media type is most appropriate for general
>    XML; [...]"

Thanks Mark for spotting this.  As time goes on, I am having more and
more difficulty believing in the notion of "general XML" - I have not
seen and am less and less able to imagine a scenario in which one
party sends another a message in "general XML".

> Also, I believe that "text/xml" should be explicitly not recommended,

Yes.  I have been arguing in the TAG context that we should take
another whack at RFC 3023 to say that "text/xml" SHOULD NOT or maybe
even MUST NOT be used - the baggage carried by "text/" seems never
useful and often harmful in the case of XML. -Tim

> Lastly, there's no mention of the RFC 3023 "+xml" suffix convention,
> which should at least be mentioned as a possibility for use.  

Yep.

> Plus, FWIW, I'm in the "don't use URNs" camp.

Me too. -Tim