[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-lilley-xml-mediatypes

Network Working Group                                          M. Murata
Internet-Draft                             IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track                                 D. Kohn
Expires: March 28, 2010                                 skymoon ventures
                                                               C. Lilley
                                                                     W3C
                                                      September 24, 2009


                            XML Media Types
                  draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 28, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.






Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


Abstract

   This document standardizes three media types -- application/xml,
   application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd --
   for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the
   Extensible Markup Language (XML) while deprecating text/xml and text/
   xml-external-parsed-entity.  This document also standardizes a
   convention (using the suffix '+xml') for naming media types outside
   of these five types when those media types represent XML MIME
   entities.  XML MIME entities are currently exchanged via the
   HyperText Transfer Protocol on the World Wide Web, are an integral
   part of the WebDAV protocol for remote web authoring, and are
   expected to have utility in many domains.

   Major differences from [RFC3023] are deprecation of text/xml and
   text/xml-external-parsed-entity, the addition of XPointer and XML
   Base as fragment identifiers and base URIs, respectively, mention of
   the XPointer Registry, and updating of many references.

































Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  XML Media Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Text/xml Registration (deprecated) . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Application/xml Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  Text/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration
           (deprecated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.4.  Application/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration  . . . 14
     3.5.  Application/xml-dtd Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.6.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   4.  The Byte Order Mark (BOM) and Conversions to/from the
       UTF-16 Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.  Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.  The Base URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  XML Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  A Naming Convention for XML-Based Media Types  . . . . . . . . 22
     8.1.  Referencing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   9.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.1.  Text/xml (deprecated) with UTF-8 Charset . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.2.  Text/xml (deprecated) with UTF-16 Charset  . . . . . . . . 25
     9.3.  Text/xml (deprecated) with UTF-16BE Charset  . . . . . . . 26
     9.4.  Text/xml (deprecated) with ISO-2022-KR Charset . . . . . . 26
     9.5.  Text/xml (deprecated) with Omitted Charset . . . . . . . . 26
     9.6.  Application/xml with UTF-16 Charset  . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     9.7.  Application/xml with UTF-16BE Charset  . . . . . . . . . . 27
     9.8.  Application/xml with ISO-2022-KR Charset . . . . . . . . . 27
     9.9.  Application/xml with Omitted Charset and UTF-16 XML
           MIME Entity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     9.10. Application/xml with Omitted Charset and UTF-8 Entity  . . 28
     9.11. Application/xml with Omitted Charset and Internal
           Encoding Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     9.12. Text/xml-external-parsed-entity (deprecated) with
           UTF-8 Charset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     9.13. Application/xml-external-parsed-entity with UTF-16
           Charset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     9.14. Application/xml-external-parsed-entity with UTF-16BE
           Charset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     9.15. Application/xml-dtd  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     9.16. Application/mathml+xml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     9.17. Application/xslt+xml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     9.18. Application/rdf+xml  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     9.19. Image/svg+xml  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     9.20. model/x3d+xml  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     9.21. INCONSISTENT EXAMPLE: Text/xml (deprecated) with UTF-8
           Charset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     9.22. application/xml  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


     9.23. Application/soap+xml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
   Appendix A.  Why Use the '+xml' Suffix for XML-Based MIME
                Types?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     A.1.  Why not just use text/xml or application/xml and let
           the XML processor dispatch to the correct application
           based on the referenced DTD? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     A.2.  Why not create a new subtree (e.g., image/xml.svg) to
           represent XML MIME types?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     A.3.  Why not create a new top-level MIME type for XML-based
           media types? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     A.4.  Why not just have the MIME processor 'sniff' the
           content to determine whether it is XML?  . . . . . . . . . 42
     A.5.  Why not use a MIME parameter to specify that a media
           type uses XML syntax?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     A.6.  How about labeling with parameters in the other
           direction (e.g., application/xml;
           Content-Feature=iotp)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
     A.7.  How about a new superclass MIME parameter that is
           defined to apply to all MIME types (e.g.,
           Content-Type: application/iotp; $superclass=xml)?  . . . . 43
     A.8.  What about adding a new parameter to the
           Content-Disposition header or creating a new
           Content-Structure header to indicate XML syntax? . . . . . 44
     A.9.  How about a new Alternative-Content-Type header? . . . . . 44
     A.10. How about using a conneg tag instead (e.g.,
           accept-features: (syntax=xml))?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     A.11. How about a third-level content-type, such as
           text/xml/rdf?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     A.12. Why use the plus ('+') character for the suffix '+xml'?  . 45
     A.13. What is the semantic difference between
           application/foo and application/foo+xml? . . . . . . . . . 45
     A.14. What happens when an even better markup language
           (e.g., EBML) is defined, or a new category of data?  . . . 45
     A.15. Why must I use the '+xml' suffix for my new XML-based
           media type?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     A.16. Why not redefine text/xml instead of deprecating it  . . . 46
   Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 3023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
   Appendix C.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49







Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


1.  Introduction

   The World Wide Web Consortium has issued the Extensible Markup
   Language (XML) 1.0 specification.  [XML].  To enable the exchange of
   XML network entities, this document standardizes three media types --
   application/xml, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and
   application/xml-dtd --, deprecates two media types -- text/xml and
   text/xml-external-parsed-entity --, as well as a naming convention
   for identifying XML-based MIME media types.

   XML entities are currently exchanged on the World Wide Web, and XML
   is also used for property values and parameter marshalling by the
   WebDAV [RFC4918] protocol for remote web authoring.  Thus, there is a
   need for a media type to properly label the exchange of XML network
   entities.

   Although XML is a subset of the Standard Generalized Markup Language
   (SGML) ISO 8879 [SGML], which has been assigned the media types text/
   sgml and application/sgml, there are several reasons why use of text/
   sgml or application/sgml to label XML is inappropriate.  First, there
   exist many applications that can process XML, but that cannot process
   SGML, due to SGML's larger feature set.  Second, SGML applications
   cannot always process XML entities, because XML uses features of
   recent technical corrigenda to SGML.  Third, the definition of text/
   sgml and application/sgml in [RFC1874] includes parameters for SGML
   bit combination transformation format (SGML-bctf), and SGML boot
   attribute (SGML-boot).  Since XML does not use these parameters, it
   would be ambiguous if such parameters were given for an XML MIME
   entity.  For these reasons, the best approach for labeling XML
   network entities has been to provide new media types for XML.

   Since XML is an integral part of the WebDAV Distributed Authoring
   Protocol, and since World Wide Web Consortium Recommendations are
   assigned standards tree media types, and since similar media types
   (HTML, SGML) have been assigned standards tree media types, the XML
   media types were also placed in the standards tree [RFC3023].

   Similarly, XML has been used as a foundation for other media types,
   including types in every branch of the IETF media types tree.  To
   facilitate the processing of such types, media types based on XML,
   but that are not identified using application/xml (or text/xml),
   SHOULD be named using a suffix of '+xml' as described in Section 8.
   This will allow XML-based tools -- browsers, editors, search engines,
   and other processors -- to work with all XML-based media types.







Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


2.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   As defined in [RFC2781] (informative), the three charsets "utf-16",
   "utf-16le", and "utf-16be" are used to label UTF-16 text.  In this
   document, "the UTF-16 family" refers to those three charsets.  By
   contrast, the phrases "utf-16" or UTF-16 in this document refer
   specifically to the single charset "utf-16".

   As sometimes happens between two communities, both MIME and XML have
   defined the term entity, with different meanings.  Section 2.4 of
   [RFC2045] says:

      "The term 'entity' refers specifically to the MIME-defined header
      fields and contents of either a message or one of the parts in the
      body of a multipart entity."

   Section 4 of [XML] says:

      "An XML document may consist of one or many storage units.  These
      are called entities; they all have content and are all (except for
      the document entity and the external DTD subset) identified by
      entity name".

   In this document, "XML MIME entity" is defined as the latter (an XML
   entity) encapsulated in the former (a MIME entity).






















Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


3.  XML Media Types

   This document standardizes three media types related to XML MIME
   entities: application/xml, application/xml-external-parsed-entity,
   and application/xml-dtd while deprecating text/xml and text/
   xml-external-parsed-entity.  Registration information for these media
   types is described in the sections below.

   Within the XML specification, XML MIME entities can be classified
   into four types.  In the XML terminology, they are called "document
   entities", "external DTD subsets", "external parsed entities", and
   "external parameter entities".  The media type application/xml MAY be
   used for "document entities", while application/
   xml-external-parsed-entity SHOULD be used for "external parsed
   entities".  Note that [RFC3023] (which this document obsoletes)
   recommended the use of text/xml and text/xml-external-parsed-entity
   for document entities and external parsed entities, respectively.
   Although these media types are still commonly used, this document
   deprecates them for future interoperability.  The media type
   application/xml-dtd SHOULD be used for "external DTD subsets" or
   "external parameter entities". application/xml MUST NOT be used for
   "external parameter entities" or "external DTD subsets", and MUST NOT
   be used for "external parsed entities" unless they are also well-
   formed "document entities" and are referenced as such.  Note that
   [RFC2376] (which is obsolete) allowed such usage, although in
   practice it is likely to have been rare.

   Neither external DTD subsets nor external parameter entities parse as
   XML documents, and while some XML document entities may be used as
   external parsed entities and vice versa, there are many cases where
   the two are not interchangeable.  XML also has unparsed entities,
   internal parsed entities, and internal parameter entities, but they
   are not XML MIME entities.

   Application/xml and application/xml-external-parsed-entity are
   recommended.  Unlike [RFC2376] or [RFC3023], this document deprecates
   text/xml and text/xml-external-parsed-entity.  The reasons are as
   follows:

      Conflicting specifications regarding the character encoding has
      caused confusion.  On the one hand, [RFC2046] specifies "The
      default character set, which must be assumed in the absence of a
      charset parameter, is US-ASCII.", [RFC2616] Section 3.7.1, defines
      that "media subtypes of the 'text' type are defined to have a
      default charset value of 'ISO-8859-1'", and [RFC2376] as well as
      [RFC3023] specify the default charset is US-ASCII.  On the other
      hand, implementors and users of XML parsers, following Appendix F
      of [XML], assume that the default is provided by the XML encoding



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


      declaration or BOM.  Note that this conflict does not exist for
      application/xml or application/xml-external-parsed-entity (see
      "Optional parameters" of application/xml registration in
      Section 3.2).

      An XML document -- that is, the unprocessed, source XML document
      -- is unreadable by casual users.  Note that MIME user agents that
      do not have explicit support for text/xml will treat it as text/
      plain, for example, by displaying the XML MIME entity as plain
      text.

      Using application/xml and application/xml-external-parsed-entity
      instead of text/xml and text/xml-external-parsed-entity does not
      loose any functionalities.

      The top-level media type "text" has some restrictions on MIME
      entities and they are described in [RFC2045] and [RFC2046].  In
      particular, the UTF-16 family, UCS-4, and UTF-32 are not allowed
      (except over HTTP [RFC2616], which uses a MIME-like mechanism).
      However, section 4.3.3 of [XML] says:



         "Each external parsed entity in an XML document may use a
         different encoding for its characters.  All XML processors MUST
         be able to read entities in both the UTF-8 and UTF-16
         encodings."

      Thus, although all XML processors can read entities in at least
      UTF-16, if an XML document or external parsed entity is encoded in
      such character encoding schemes, it cannot be labeled as text/xml
      or text/xml-external-parsed-entity (except for HTTP).

   XML provides a general framework for defining sequences of structured
   data.  In some cases, it may be desirable to define new media types
   that use XML but define a specific application of XML, perhaps due to
   domain-specific display, editing, security considerations or runtime
   information.  Furthermore, such media types may allow UTF-8 or UTF-16
   only and prohibit other charsets.  This document does not prohibit
   such media types and in fact expects them to proliferate.  However,
   developers of such media types are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to use this
   document as a basis for their registration.  In particular, the
   charset parameter SHOULD be used in the same manner, as described in
   Section 8.1, in order to enhance interoperability.

   An XML document labeled as application/xml, or with a +xml media
   type, (or text/xml) might contain namespace declarations, stylesheet-
   linking processing instructions (PIs), schema information, or other



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   declarations that might be used to suggest how the document is to be
   processed.  For example, a document might have the XHTML namespace
   and a reference to a CSS stylesheet.  Such a document might be
   handled by applications that would use this information to dispatch
   the document for appropriate processing.

3.1.  Text/xml Registration (deprecated)

   MIME media type name:  text

   MIME subtype name:  xml

   Mandatory parameters:  none

   Optional parameters:  charset

      Although listed as an optional parameter, the use of the charset
      parameter is REQUIRED, unless the charset is us-ascii.  The
      charset parameter can also be used to provide protocol-specific
      operations, such as charset-based content negotiation in HTTP.
      "utf-8" [RFC3629] is the recommended value, representing the UTF-8
      charset.  UTF-8 is supported by all conforming processors of [XML]

      If the XML MIME entity is transmitted via HTTP, which uses a MIME-
      like mechanism that is exempt from the restrictions on the text
      top-level type (see section 19.4.1 of [RFC2616]), "utf-16"
      [RFC2781]) is also recommended.  UTF-16 is supported by all
      conforming processors of [XML].  Since the handling of CR, LF and
      NUL for text types in most MIME applications would cause undesired
      transformations of individual octets in UTF-16 multi-octet
      characters, gateways from HTTP to these MIME applications MUST
      transform the XML MIME entity from text/xml; charset="utf-16" to
      application/xml; charset="utf-16".

      Conformant with [RFC2046], if a text/xml entity is received with
      the charset parameter omitted, MIME processors and XML processors
      MUST use the default charset value of "us-ascii" [ASCII].  In
      cases where the XML MIME entity is transmitted via HTTP, the
      default charset value is still "us-ascii".  (Note: There is an
      inconsistency between this specification and HTTP/1.1, which uses
      ISO-8859-1 [ISO8859] as the default for a historical reason.
      Since it is the intersection of UTF-8 and ISO-8859-1 and since it
      is already used by MIME, US-ASCII was chosen, as the default
      charset for text/xml.  However, it is known that many servers and
      parsers ignore this default and rely on the XML encoding
      declaration or BOM.  Thus, application/xml is a more suitable
      choice.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


      There are several reasons that the charset parameter was
      authoritative.  First, some MIME processing engines do transcoding
      of MIME bodies of the top-level media type "text" without
      reference to any of the internal content.  Thus, it is possible
      that some agent might change text/xml; charset="iso-2022-jp" to
      text/xml; charset="utf-8" without modifying the encoding
      declaration of an XML document.  Second, text/xml must be
      compatible with text/plain, since MIME agents that do not
      understand text/xml will fallback to handling it as text/plain.
      If the charset parameter for text/xml were not authoritative, such
      fallback would cause data corruption.  Third, recent web servers
      have been improved so that server administrators can specify the
      charset parameter.  Fourth, [RFC2130] (informative) specifies that
      the recommended specification scheme is the "charset" parameter.

      Since the charset parameter is authoritative, the charset was
      sometimes not declared within an XML encoding declaration.  Thus,
      special care was needed when the recipient stripped the MIME
      header and provided persistent storage of the received XML MIME
      entity (e.g., in a file system).  Unless the charset is UTF-8 or
      UTF-16, the recipient SHOULD also persistently store information
      about the charset, perhaps by embedding a correct XML encoding
      declaration within the XML MIME entity.

   Encoding considerations:  This media type MAY be encoded as
      appropriate for the charset and the capabilities of the underlying
      MIME transport.  For 7-bit transports, data in UTF-8 MUST be
      encoded in quoted-printable or base64.  For 8-bit clean transport
      (e.g., 8BITMIME [RFC1652] ESMTP or NNTP [RFC3977]), UTF-8 does not
      need to be encoded.  Over HTTP [RFC2616], no content-transfer-
      encoding is necessary and UTF-16 may also be used.

   Security considerations:  See Section 11.

   Interoperability considerations:  XML has proven to be interoperable
      across WebDAV clients and servers, and for import and export from
      multiple XML authoring tools.  For maximum interoperability,
      validating processors are recommended.  Although non-validating
      processors may be more efficient, they are not required to handle
      all features of XML.  For further information, see sub-section 2.9
      "Standalone Document Declaration" and section 5 "Conformance" of
      [XML] .

   Published specification:  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
      Edition) [XML].






Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   Applications which use this media type:  XML is device-, platform-,
      and vendor-neutral and is supported by a wide range of Web user
      agents, WebDAV [RFC4918] clients and servers, as well as XML
      authoring tools.

   Additional information:

      Magic number(s):  None.

         Although no byte sequences can be counted on to always be
         present, XML MIME entities in ASCII-compatible charsets
         (including UTF-8) often begin with hexadecimal 3C 3F 78 6D 6C
         ("<?xml"), and those in UTF-16 often begin with hexadecimal FE
         FF 00 3C 00 3F 00 78 00 6D 00 6C or FF FE 3C 00 3F 00 78 00 6D
         00 6C 00 (the Byte Order Mark (BOM) followed by "<?xml").  For
         more information, see Appendix F of [XML].

      File extension(s):  .xml

      Macintosh File Type Code(s):  "TEXT"

   Person and email address for further information:

         MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>

         Daniel Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>

         Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author/Change controller:  The XML specification is a work product of
      the World Wide Web Consortium's XML Working Group, and was edited
      by:

         Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>

         Jean Paoli <jeanpa@microsoft.com>

         C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@uic.edu>

         Eve Maler <eve.maler@east.sun.com>

         Francois Yergeau <mailto:francois@yergeau.com>

      The W3C, and the W3C XML Core Working Group, have change control
      over the XML specification.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


3.2.  Application/xml Registration

   MIME media type name:  application

   MIME subtype name:  xml

   Mandatory parameters:  none

   Optional parameters:  charset

      Although listed as an optional parameter, the use of the charset
      parameter, when the charset is reliably known and agrees with the
      encoding declaration, is RECOMMENDED, since this information can
      be used by non-XML processors to determine authoritatively the
      charset of the XML MIME entity.  The charset parameter can also be
      used to provide protocol-specific operations, such as charset-
      based content negotiation in HTTP.

      "utf-8" [RFC3629] and "utf-16" [RFC2781] are the recommended
      values, representing the UTF-8 and UTF-16 charsets, respectively.
      These charsets are preferred since they are supported by all
      conforming processors of [XML].

      If an application/xml entity is received where the charset
      parameter is omitted, no information is being provided about the
      charset by the MIME Content-Type header.  Conforming XML
      processors MUST follow the requirements in section 4.3.3 of [XML]
      that directly address this contingency.  However, MIME processors
      that are not XML processors SHOULD NOT assume a default charset if
      the charset parameter is omitted from an application/xml entity.

      There are several reasons that the charset parameter is
      authoritative.  First, recent web servers have been improved so
      that users can specify the charset parameter.  Second, [RFC2130]
      (informative) specifies that the recommended specification scheme
      is the "charset" parameter.

      On the other hand, it has been argued that the charset parameter
      should be omitted and the mechanism described in Appendix F of
      [XML] (which is non-normative) should be solely relied on.  This
      approach would allow users to avoid configuration of the charset
      parameter; an XML document stored in a file is likely to contain a
      correct encoding declaration or BOM (if necessary), since the
      operating system does not typically provide charset information
      for files.  If users would like to rely on the encoding
      declaration or BOM and to hide charset information from protocols,
      they SHOULD determine not to use the parameter.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


      Since the charset parameter is authoritative, the charset is not
      always declared within an XML encoding declaration.  However,
      since a receiving application can, with very high reliability,
      determine the encoding of an XML document by reading it, the XML
      encoding declaration SHOULD be provided and SHOULD agree with the
      charset parameter.  Special care is needed when the recipient
      strips the MIME header and provides persistent storage of the
      received XML MIME entity (e.g., in a file system).  Unless the
      charset is UTF-8 or UTF-16, the recipient SHOULD also persistently
      store information about the charset, preferably by embedding a
      correct XML encoding declaration within the XML MIME entity.

   Encoding considerations:  This media type MAY be encoded as
      appropriate for the charset and the capabilities of the underlying
      MIME transport.  For 7-bit transports, data in either UTF-8 or
      UTF-16 MUST be encoded in quoted-printable or base64.  For 8-bit
      clean transport (e.g., 8BITMIME [RFC1652] ESMTP or NNTP
      [RFC3977]), UTF-8 is not encoded, but the UTF-16 family MUST be
      encoded in base64.  For binary clean transports (e.g., HTTP
      [RFC2616]), no content-transfer-encoding is necessary.

   Security considerations:  See Section 11.

   Interoperability considerations:  Same as Section 3.1.

   Published specification:  Same as Section 3.1.

   Applications which use this media type:  Same as Section 3.1.

   Additional information:  Same as Section 3.1.

   Person and email address for further information:  Same as
      Section 3.1.

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author/Change controller:  Same as Section 3.1.

3.3.  Text/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration (deprecated)

   MIME media type name:  text

   MIME subtype name:  xml-external-parsed-entity

   Mandatory parameters:  none






Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   Optional parameters:  charset

      The charset parameter of text/xml-external-parsed-entity is
      handled the same as that of text/xml as described in Section 3.1.

   Encoding considerations:  Same as Section 3.1.

   Security considerations:  See Section 11.

   Interoperability considerations:  XML external parsed entities are as
      interoperable as XML documents, though they have a less tightly
      constrained structure and therefore need to be referenced by XML
      documents for proper handling by XML processors.  Similarly, XML
      documents cannot be reliably used as external parsed entities
      because external parsed entities are prohibited from having
      standalone document declarations or DTDs.  Identifying XML
      external parsed entities with their own content type should
      enhance interoperability of both XML documents and XML external
      parsed entities.

   Published specification:  Same as Section 3.1.

   Applications which use this media type:  Same as Section 3.1.

   Additional information:

      Magic number(s):  Same as Section 3.1.

      File extension(s):  .xml or .ent

      Macintosh File Type Code(s):  "TEXT"

   Person and email address for further information:  Same as
      Section 3.1.

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author/Change controller:  Same as Section 3.1.

3.4.  Application/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration

   MIME media type name:  application

   MIME subtype name:  xml-external-parsed-entity







Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   Mandatory parameters:  none

   Optional parameters:  charset

      The charset parameter of application/xml-external-parsed-entity is
      handled the same as that of application/xml as described in
      Section 3.2.

   Encoding considerations:  Same as Section 3.2.

   Security considerations:  See Section 11.

   Interoperability considerations:  Same as those for text/
      xml-external-parsed-entity as described in Section 3.3.

   Published specification:  Same as text/xml as described in
      Section 3.1.

   Applications which use this media type:  Same as Section 3.1.

   Additional information:

      Magic number(s):  Same as Section 3.1.

      File extension(s):  .xml or .ent

      Macintosh File Type Code(s):  "TEXT"

   Person and email address for further information:  Same as
      Section 3.1.

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author/Change controller:  Same as Section 3.1.

3.5.  Application/xml-dtd Registration

   MIME media type name:  application

   MIME subtype name:  xml-dtd

   Mandatory parameters:  none

   Optional parameters:  charset

      The charset parameter of application/xml-dtd is handled the same
      as that of application/xml as described in Section 3.2.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   Encoding considerations:  Same as Section 3.2.

   Security considerations:  See Section 11.

   Interoperability considerations:  XML DTDs have proven to be
      interoperable by DTD authoring tools and XML browsers, among
      others.

   Published specification:  Same as text/xml as described in
      Section 3.1.

   Applications which use this media type:  DTD authoring tools handle
      external DTD subsets as well as external parameter entities.  XML
      browsers may also access external DTD subsets and external
      parameter entities.

   Additional information:

      Magic number(s):  Same as Section 3.1.

      File extension(s):  .dtd or .mod

      Macintosh File Type Code(s):  "TEXT"

   Person and email address for further information:  Same as
      Section 3.1.

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author/Change controller:  Same as Section 3.1.

3.6.  Summary

   The following list applies to application/xml, application/
   xml-external-parsed-entity, application/xml-dtd, and XML-based media
   types under top-level types other than "text" that define the charset
   parameter according to this specification:

   o  Charset parameter is recommended, if it agrees with the xml
      encoding declaration, and if present, it takes precedence.

   o  If the charset parameter is omitted, conforming XML processors
      MUST follow the requirements in section 4.3.3 of [XML] or [XML1.1]
      as appropriate.

   Although text/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, and subtypes of
   "text" having the "+xml" suffix are deprecated, the next list applies
   to these media types:



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   o  Charset parameter is strongly recommended.

   o  If the charset parameter is not specified, the default is "us-
      ascii".  The default of "iso-8859-1" in HTTP is explicitly
      overridden.

   o  No error handling provisions.

   o  An encoding declaration, if present, is irrelevant, but when
      saving a received resource as a file, the correct encoding
      declaration SHOULD be inserted.








































Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


4.  The Byte Order Mark (BOM) and Conversions to/from the UTF-16 Charset

   Section 4.3.3 of [XML] specifies that XML MIME entities in the
   charset "utf-16" MUST begin with a byte order mark (BOM), which is a
   hexadecimal octet sequence 0xFE 0xFF (or 0xFF 0xFE, depending on
   endian).  The XML Recommendation further states that the BOM is an
   encoding signature, and is not part of either the markup or the
   character data of the XML document.

   Due to the presence of the BOM, applications that convert XML from
   "utf-16" to a non-Unicode encoding MUST strip the BOM before
   conversion.  Similarly, when converting from another encoding into
   "utf-16", the BOM MUST be added after conversion is complete.

   In addition to the charset "utf-16", [RFC2781] introduces "utf-16le"
   (little endian) and "utf-16be" (big endian) as well.  The BOM is
   prohibited for these charsets.  When an XML MIME entity is encoded in
   "utf-16le" or "utf-16be", it MUST NOT begin with the BOM but SHOULD
   contain an encoding declaration.  Conversion from "utf-16" to "utf-
   16be" or "utf-16le" and conversion in the other direction MUST strip
   or add the BOM, respectively.






























Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


5.  Fragment Identifiers

   Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) may contain fragement identifiers
   (see Section 3.5 of [RFC3986]).  Likewise, Internationalized Resource
   Identifiers (IRIs) [RFC3987] may contain fragement identifiers.

   A family of specifications define fragment identifiers for XML media
   types.  The fragment identifier syntax for application/xml is defined
   by two W3C Recommendations in this family, namely [XPointerFramework]
   and [XPointerElement].  Schemes other than the element scheme MUST
   NOT be specified as part of fragment identifiers for these media
   types.  In particular, the xpointer scheme MUST NOT be specified
   since it is still at the W3C working draft stage.

   When an XML-based MIME media type follows the naming convention
   '+xml', the fragment identifier syntax for this media type SHALL
   include the fragment identifier syntax for application/xml and
   application/xml-external-parsed-entity.  It MAY further allow other
   registered schemes such as the xmlns scheme and other schemes.

   A registry of XPointer schemes [XPtrReg] is maintained at the W3C.
   Unregistered schemes SHOULD NOT be used.

   If [XPointerFramework] and [XPointerElement] are inappropriate for
   some XML-based media type, it SHOULD NOT follow the naming convention
   '+xml'.

   When a URI has a fragment identifier, it is encoded by a limited
   subset of the repertoire of US-ASCII [ASCII] characters, as defined
   in [RFC3986].  When a IRI contains a fragment identifier, it is
   encoded by a much wider repertoire of characters.  The conversion
   between IRI fragment identifiers and URI fragment identifiers is
   presented in Section 7 of [RFC3987].

   An XPointer fragment identifier does not have to be resolved even
   when an XML document is retrieved.















Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


6.  The Base URI

   Section 5.1 of [RFC3986] specifies that the semantics of a relative
   URI reference embedded in a MIME entity is dependent on the base URI.
   The base URI is either (1) the base URI embedded in context, (2) the
   base URI from the encapsulating entity, (3) the base URI from the
   Retrieval URI, or (4) the default base URI, where (1) has the highest
   precedence.  [RFC3986] further specifies that the mechanism for
   embedding the base URI is depaendent on the media type.

   The media type dependent mechanism for embedding the base URI in a
   MIME entity of type application/xml or application/
   xml-external-parsed-entity is to use the xml:base attribute described
   in detail in [XBase].

   Note that the base URI may be embedded in a different MIME entity,
   since the default value for the xml:base attribute may be specified
   in an external DTD subset or external parameter entity.

































Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


7.  XML Versions

   application/xml, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and
   application/xml-dtd, text/xml(deprecated) and text/
   xml-external-parsed-entity(deprecated) are to be used with [XML] In
   all examples herein where version="1.0" is shown, it is understood
   that version="1.1" may also be used, providing the content does
   indeed conform to [XML1.1].

   The normative requirement of this specification upon XML is to follow
   the requirements of [XML], section 4.3.3.  Except for minor
   clarifications, that section is substantially identical from the
   first edition to the current (5th) edition of XML 1.0, and for XML
   1.1.  Therefore, this specification may be used with any version or
   edition of XML 1.0 or 1.1.

   Specifications and recommendations based on or referring to this RFC
   SHOULD indicate any limitations on the particular versions of XML to
   be used.  For example, a particular specification might indicate:
   "content MUST be represented using media-type application/xml, and
   the document must either (a) carry an xml declaration specifying
   version="1.0" or (b) omit the XML declaration, in which case per the
   XML recommendation the version defaults to 1.0"




























Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


8.  A Naming Convention for XML-Based Media Types

   This document recommends the use of a naming convention (a suffix of
   '+xml') for identifying XML-based MIME media types, whatever their
   particular content may represent.  This allows the use of generic XML
   processors and technologies on a wide variety of different XML
   document types at a minimum cost, using existing frameworks for media
   type registration.

   Although the use of a suffix was not considered as part of the
   original MIME architecture, this choice is considered to provide the
   most functionality with the least potential for interoperability
   problems or lack of future extensibility.  The alternatives to the
   '+xml' suffix and the reason for its selection are described in
   Appendix A.

   As XML development continues, new XML document types are appearing
   rapidly.  Many of these XML document types would benefit from the
   identification possibilities of a more specific MIME media type than
   text/xml or application/xml can provide, and it is likely that many
   new media types for XML-based document types will be registered in
   the near and ongoing future.

   While the benefits of specific MIME types for particular types of XML
   documents are significant, all XML documents share common structures
   and syntax that make possible common processing.

   Some areas where 'generic' processing is useful include:

   o  Browsing - An XML browser can display any XML document with a
      provided [CSS] or [XSLT] style sheet, whatever the vocabulary of
      that document.

   o  Editing - Any XML editor can read, modify, and save any XML
      document.

   o  Fragment identification - XPointers (see Section 5) can work with
      any XML document, whatever vocabulary it uses.

   o  Hypertext linking - XLink (work in progress) hypertext linking is
      designed to connect any XML documents, regardless of vocabulary.

   o  Searching - XML-oriented search engines, web crawlers, agents, and
      query tools should be able to read XML documents and extract the
      names and content of elements and attributes even if the tools are
      ignorant of the particular vocabulary used for elements and
      attributes.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   o  Storage - XML-oriented storage systems, which keep XML documents
      internally in a parsed form, should similarly be able to process,
      store, and recreate any XML document.

   o  Well-formedness and validity checking - An XML processor can
      confirm that any XML document is well-formed and that it is valid
      (i.e., conforms to its declared DTD or Schema).

   When a new media type is introduced for an XML-based format, the name
   of the media type SHOULD end with '+xml'.  This convention will allow
   applications that can process XML generically to detect that the MIME
   entity is supposed to be an XML document, verify this assumption by
   invoking some XML processor, and then process the XML document
   accordingly.  Applications may match for types that represent XML
   MIME entities by comparing the subtype to the pattern '*/*+xml'.  (Of
   course, 4 of the 5 media types defined in this document -- text/xml,
   application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/
   xml-external-parsed-entity -- also represent XML MIME entities while
   not conforming to the '*/*+xml' pattern.)

      NOTE: Section 14.1 of HTTP [RFC2616] does not support Accept
      headers of the form "Accept: */*+xml" and so this header MUST NOT
      be used in this way.  Instead, content negotiation [RFC2703] could
      potentially be used if an XML-based MIME type were needed.

   Media types following the naming convention '+xml' SHOULD introduce
   the charset parameter for consistency, since XML-generic processing
   applies the same program for any such media type.  However, there are
   some cases that the charset parameter needs not be introduced.  For
   example:

      When an XML-based media type is restricted to UTF-8, it is not
      necessary to introduce the charset paramter.  "UTF-8 only" is a
      generic principle and UTF-8 is the default of XML.

      When an XML-based media type is restricted to UTF-8 and UTF-16, it
      might not be unreasonable to omit the charset parameter.  Neither
      UTF-8 nor UTF-16 require encoding declarations of XML.

      Note: Some argue that XML-based media types should not introduce
      the charset parameter, although others disagree.

   XML generic processing is not always appropriate for XML-based media
   types.  For example, authors of some such media types may wish that
   the types remain entirely opaque except to applications that are
   specifically designed to deal with that media type.  By NOT following
   the naming convention '+xml', such media types can avoid XML-generic
   processing.  Since generic processing will be useful in many cases,



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   however -- including in some situations that are difficult to predict
   ahead of time -- those registering media types SHOULD use the '+xml'
   convention unless they have a particularly compelling reason not to.

   The registration process for these media types is described in
   [RFC4288] and [RFC4289] .  The registrar for the IETF tree will
   encourage new XML-based media type registrations in the IETF tree to
   follow this guideline.  Registrars for other trees SHOULD follow this
   convention in order to ensure maximum interoperability of their XML-
   based documents.  Similarly, media subtypes that do not represent XML
   MIME entities MUST NOT be allowed to register with a '+xml' suffix.

8.1.  Referencing

   Registrations for new XML-based media types under the top-level type
   "text" are discouraged for the same reasons that text/xml and text/
   xml-external-parsed-entity are deprecated.

   Registrations for new XML-based media types under top-level types
   other than "text" SHOULD, in specifying the charset parameter and
   encoding considerations, define them as: "Same as [charset parameter
   / encoding considerations] of application/xml as specified in RFC
   XXXX."

   The use of the charset parameter is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED, since this
   information can be used by XML processors to determine
   authoritatively the charset of the XML MIME entity.  If there are
   some reasons not to follow this advice, they SHOULD be included as
   part of the registration.  As shown above, two such reasons are
   "UTF-8 only" or "UTF-8 or UTF-16 only".

   These registrations SHOULD specify that the XML-based media type
   being registered has all of the security considerations described in
   RFC XXXX plus any additional considerations specific to that media
   type.

   These registrations SHOULD also make reference to RFC XXXX in
   specifying magic numbers, fragment identifiers, base URIs, and use of
   the BOM.

   These registrations MAY reference the applicaiton/xml registration in
   RFC XXXX in specifying interoperability considerations, if these
   considerations are not overridden by issues specific to that media
   type.







Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


9.  Examples

   The examples below give the value of the MIME Content-type header and
   the XML declaration (which includes the encoding declaration) inside
   the XML MIME entity.  For UTF-16 examples, the Byte Order Mark
   character is denoted as "{BOM}", and the XML declaration is assumed
   to come at the beginning of the XML MIME entity, immediately
   following the BOM.  Note that other MIME headers may be present, and
   the XML MIME entity may contain other data in addition to the XML
   declaration; the examples focus on the Content-type header and the
   encoding declaration for clarity.

9.1.  Text/xml (deprecated) with UTF-8 Charset

   Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

   This is the recommended charset value for use with text/xml.  Since
   the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat
   the enclosed entity as UTF-8 encoded.

   If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g.  SMTP [RFC5321]), the XML MIME
   entity MUST use a content-transfer-encoding of either quoted-
   printable or base64.  For an 8-bit clean transport (e.g., 8BITMIME
   ESMTP or NNTP), or a binary clean transport (e.g., HTTP), no content-
   transfer-encoding is necessary.

9.2.  Text/xml (deprecated) with UTF-16 Charset

   Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-16"

   {BOM}<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-16'?>

   or

   {BOM}<?xml version='1.0'?>

   This is possible only when the XML MIME entity is transmitted via
   HTTP, which uses a MIME-like mechanism and is a binary-clean
   protocol, hence does not perform CR and LF transformations and allows
   NUL octets.  As described in [RFC2781], the UTF-16 family MUST NOT be
   used with media types under the top-level type "text" except over
   HTTP (see section 19.4.1 of [RFC2616] for details).

   Since HTTP is binary clean, no content-transfer-encoding is
   necessary.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


9.3.  Text/xml (deprecated) with UTF-16BE Charset

   Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-16be"

   <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-16be'?>

   Observe that the BOM does not exist.  This is again possible only
   when the XML MIME entity is transmitted via HTTP.

9.4.  Text/xml (deprecated) with ISO-2022-KR Charset

   Content-type: text/xml; charset="iso-2022-kr"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding='iso-2022-kr'?>

   This example shows text/xml with a Korean charset (e.g., Hangul)
   encoded following the specification in [RFC1557].  Since the charset
   parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the
   enclosed entity as encoded per RFC 1557.

   Since ISO-2022-KR has been defined to use only 7 bits of data, no
   content-transfer-encoding is necessary with any transport.

9.5.  Text/xml (deprecated) with Omitted Charset

   Content-type: text/xml

   {BOM}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?>

   or

   {BOM}<?xml version="1.0"?>

   This example shows text/xml with the charset parameter omitted.  In
   this case, MIME and XML processors MUST assume the charset is "us-
   ascii", the default charset value for text media types specified in
   [RFC2046].  The default of "us-ascii" holds even if the text/xml
   entity is transported using HTTP.

   Omitting the charset parameter is NOT RECOMMENDED for text/xml.  For
   example, even if the contents of the XML MIME entity are UTF-16 or
   UTF-8, or the XML MIME entity has an explicit encoding declaration,
   XML and MIME processors MUST assume the charset is "us-ascii".

9.6.  Application/xml with UTF-16 Charset

   Content-type: application/xml; charset="utf-16"




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   {BOM}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?>

   or

   {BOM}<?xml version="1.0"?>

   This is a recommended charset value for use with application/xml.
   Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST
   treat the enclosed entity as UTF-16 encoded.

   If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g., SMTP) or an 8-bit clean
   transport (e.g., 8BITMIME ESMTP or NNTP), the XML MIME entity MUST be
   encoded in quoted-printable or base64.  For a binary clean transport
   (e.g., HTTP), no content-transfer-encoding is necessary.

9.7.  Application/xml with UTF-16BE Charset

   Content-type: application/xml; charset="utf-16be"

   <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-16be'?>

   Observe that the BOM does not exist.  Since the charset parameter is
   provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as
   UTF-16BE encoded.

9.8.  Application/xml with ISO-2022-KR Charset

   Content-type: application/xml; charset="iso-2022-kr"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-2022-kr"?>

   This example shows application/xml with a Korean charset (e.g.,
   Hangul) encoded following the specification in [RFC1557].  Since the
   charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the
   enclosed entity as encoded per RFC 1557, independent of whether the
   XML MIME entity has an internal encoding declaration (this example
   does show such a declaration, which agrees with the charset
   parameter).

   Since ISO-2022-KR has been defined to use only 7 bits of data, no
   content-transfer-encoding is necessary with any transport.

9.9.  Application/xml with Omitted Charset and UTF-16 XML MIME Entity

   Content-type: application/xml

   {BOM}<?xml version='1.0' encoding="utf-16"?>




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   or

   {BOM}<?xml version='1.0'?>

   For this example, the XML MIME entity begins with a BOM.  Since the
   charset has been omitted, a conforming XML processor follows the
   requirements of [XML], section 4.3.3.  Specifically, the XML
   processor reads the BOM, and thus knows deterministically that the
   charset is UTF-16.

   An XML-unaware MIME processor SHOULD make no assumptions about the
   charset of the XML MIME entity.

9.10.  Application/xml with Omitted Charset and UTF-8 Entity

   Content-type: application/xml

   <?xml version='1.0'?>

   In this example, the charset parameter has been omitted, and there is
   no BOM.  Since there is no BOM, the XML processor follows the
   requirements in section 4.3.3, and optionally applies the mechanism
   described in Appendix F (which is non-normative) of [XML] to
   determine the charset encoding of UTF-8.  The XML MIME entity does
   not contain an encoding declaration, but since the encoding is UTF-8,
   this is still a conforming XML MIME entity.

   An XML-unaware MIME processor SHOULD make no assumptions about the
   charset of the XML MIME entity.

9.11.  Application/xml with Omitted Charset and Internal Encoding
       Declaration

   Content-type: application/xml

   <?xml version='1.0' encoding="iso-10646-ucs-4"?>

   In this example, the charset parameter has been omitted, and there is
   no BOM.  However, the XML MIME entity does have an encoding
   declaration inside the XML MIME entity that specifies the entity's
   charset.  Following the requirements in section 4.3.3, and optionally
   applying the mechanism described in Appendix F (non-normative) of
   [XML], the XML processor determines the charset encoding of the XML
   MIME entity (in this example, UCS-4).

   An XML-unaware MIME processor SHOULD make no assumptions about the
   charset of the XML MIME entity.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


9.12.  Text/xml-external-parsed-entity (deprecated) with UTF-8 Charset

   Content-type: text/xml-external-parsed-entity; charset="utf-8"

   <?xml encoding="utf-8"?>

   This is the recommended charset value for use with text/
   xml-external-parsed-entity.  Since the charset parameter is provided,
   MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-8
   encoded.

   If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g.  SMTP), the XML MIME entity
   MUST use a content-transfer-encoding of either quoted-printable or
   base64.  For an 8-bit clean transport (e.g., 8BITMIME ESMTP or NNTP),
   or a binary clean transport (e.g., HTTP) no content-transfer-encoding
   is necessary.

9.13.  Application/xml-external-parsed-entity with UTF-16 Charset

   Content-type: application/xml-external-parsed-entity;
   charset="utf-16"

   {BOM}<?xml encoding="utf-16"?>

   or

   {BOM}<?xml?>

   This is a recommended charset value for use with application/
   xml-external-parsed-entity.  Since the charset parameter is provided,
   MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-16
   encoded.

   If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g., SMTP) or an 8-bit clean
   transport (e.g., 8BITMIME ESMTP or NNTP), the XML MIME entity MUST be
   encoded in quoted-printable or base64.  For a binary clean transport
   (e.g., HTTP), no content-transfer-encoding is necessary.

9.14.  Application/xml-external-parsed-entity with UTF-16BE Charset

   Content-type: application/xml-external-parsed-entity; charset="utf-
   16be"

   <?xml encoding="utf-16be"?>

   Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME and XML processors MUST
   treat the enclosed entity as UTF-16BE encoded.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


9.15.  Application/xml-dtd

   Content-type: application/xml-dtd; charset="utf-8"

   <?xml encoding="utf-8"?>

   Charset "utf-8" is a recommended charset value for use with
   application/xml-dtd.  Since the charset parameter is provided, MIME
   and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-8 encoded.

9.16.  Application/mathml+xml

   Content-type: application/mathml+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" ?>

   MathML documents are XML documents whose content describes
   mathematical information, as defined by [MathML].  As a format based
   on XML, MathML documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix convention in
   their MIME content-type identifier.  However, no content type has yet
   been registered for MathML and so this media type should not be used
   until such registration has been completed.

9.17.  Application/xslt+xml

   Content-type: application/xslt+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" ?>

   Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSLT) documents are XML documents
   whose content describes stylesheets for other XML documents, as
   defined by [XSLT].  As a format based on XML, XSLT documents SHOULD
   use the '+xml' suffix convention in their MIME content-type
   identifier.  However, no content type has yet been registered for
   XSLT and so this media type should not be used until such
   registration has been completed.

9.18.  Application/rdf+xml

   Content-type: application/rdf+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" ?>

   Resources identified using the application/rdf+xml media type are XML
   documents whose content describe RDF metadata.  This media type has
   been registered at IANA and is fully defined in [RFC3870].





Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


9.19.  Image/svg+xml

   Content-type: image/svg+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" ?>

   Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) documents are XML documents whose
   content describes graphical information, as defined by [SVG].  As a
   format based on XML, SVG documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix
   convention in their MIME content-type identifier.  Content type
   registration for SVG is in progress, [SVGMediaType] but depends on
   the present document.

9.20.  model/x3d+xml

   Content-type: model/x3d+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" ?>

   X3D is derived from VRML and is used for 3D models.  Besides the XML
   representation, it may also be serialised in classic VRML syntax and
   using a fast infoset.  Separate, but clearly related media types are
   used for these serialisations (model/x3d+vrml and model/
   x3d+fastinfoset respectively)..

9.21.  INCONSISTENT EXAMPLE: Text/xml (deprecated) with UTF-8 Charset

   Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

   Since the charset parameter is provided in the Content-Type header,
   MIME and XML processors MUST treat the enclosed entity as UTF-8
   encoded.  That is, the "iso-8859-1" encoding MUST be ignored.

   Processors generating XML MIME entities MUST NOT label conflicting
   charset information between the MIME Content-Type and the XML
   declaration.

9.22.  application/xml

   Content-type: application/xml

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

   Since the charset parameter is not provided in the Content-Type
   header, MIME and XML processors MUST treat the "iso-8859-1" encoding
   as authoritative.



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   Processors generating XML MIME entities MUST NOT label conflicting
   charset information between the MIME Content-Type and the XML
   declaration.

9.23.  Application/soap+xml

   Content-type: application/soap+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" ?>

   Resources identified using the application/soap+xml media type are
   SOAP 1.2 message envelopes that have been serialized with XML 1.0.
   This media type has been registered at IANA and is fully defined in
   [RFC3902].





































Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


10.  IANA Considerations

   As described in Section 8, this document updates the [RFC4288] and
   [RFC4289] registration process for XML-based MIME types.















































Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


11.  Security Considerations

   XML, as a subset of SGML, has all of the same security considerations
   as specified in [RFC1874], and likely more, due to its expected
   ubiquitous deployment.

   To paraphrase section 3 of RFC 1874, XML MIME entities contain
   information to be parsed and processed by the recipient's XML system.
   These entities may contain and such systems may permit explicit
   system level commands to be executed while processing the data.  To
   the extent that an XML system will execute arbitrary command strings,
   recipients of XML MIME entities may be a risk.  In general, it may be
   possible to specify commands that perform unauthorized file
   operations or make changes to the display processor's environment
   that affect subsequent operations.

   In general, any information stored outside of the direct control of
   the user -- including CSS style sheets, XSL transformations, entity
   declarations, and DTDs -- can be a source of insecurity, by either
   obvious or subtle means.  For example, a tiny "whiteout attack"
   modification made to a "master" style sheet could make words in
   critical locations disappear in user documents, without directly
   modifying the user document or the stylesheet it references.  Thus,
   the security of any XML document is vitally dependent on all of the
   documents recursively referenced by that document.

   The entity lists and DTDs for XHTML 1.0 [XHTML], for instance, are
   likely to be a commonly used set of information.  Many developers
   will use and trust them, few of whom will know much about the level
   of security on the W3C's servers, or on any similarly trusted
   repository.

   The simplest attack involves adding declarations that break
   validation.  Adding extraneous declarations to a list of character
   entities can effectively "break the contract" used by documents.  A
   tiny change that produces a fatal error in a DTD could halt XML
   processing on a large scale.  Extraneous declarations are fairly
   obvious, but more sophisticated tricks, like changing attributes from
   being optional to required, can be difficult to track down.  Perhaps
   the most dangerous option available to crackers is redefining default
   values for attributes: e.g., if developers have relied on defaulted
   attributes for security, a relatively small change might expose
   enormous quantities of information.

   Apart from the structural possibilities, another option, "entity
   spoofing," can be used to insert text into documents, vandalizing and
   perhaps conveying an unintended message.  Because XML 1.0 permits
   multiple entity declarations, and the first declaration takes



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   precedence, it's possible to insert malicious content where an entity
   is used, such as by inserting the full text of Winnie the Pooh in
   every occurrence of &mdash;.

   Use of the digital signatures work currently underway by the xmldsig
   working group may eventually ameliorate the dangers of referencing
   external documents not under one's own control.

   Use of XML is expected to be varied, and widespread.  XML is under
   scrutiny by a wide range of communities for use as a common syntax
   for community-specific metadata.  For example, the Dublin Core
   [RFC5013] group is using XML for document metadata, and a new effort
   has begun that is considering use of XML for medical information.
   Other groups view XML as a mechanism for marshalling parameters for
   remote procedure calls.  More uses of XML will undoubtedly arise.

   Security considerations will vary by domain of use.  For example, XML
   medical records will have much more stringent privacy and security
   considerations than XML library metadata.  Similarly, use of XML as a
   parameter marshalling syntax necessitates a case by case security
   review.

   XML may also have some of the same security concerns as plain text.
   Like plain text, XML can contain escape sequences that, when
   displayed, have the potential to change the display processor
   environment in ways that adversely affect subsequent operations.
   Possible effects include, but are not limited to, locking the
   keyboard, changing display parameters so subsequent displayed text is
   unreadable, or even changing display parameters to deliberately
   obscure or distort subsequent displayed material so that its meaning
   is lost or altered.  Display processors SHOULD either filter such
   material from displayed text or else make sure to reset all important
   settings after a given display operation is complete.

   Some terminal devices have keys whose output, when pressed, can be
   changed by sending the display processor a character sequence.  If
   this is possible the display of a text object containing such
   character sequences could reprogram keys to perform some illicit or
   dangerous action when the key is subsequently pressed by the user.
   In some cases not only can keys be programmed, they can be triggered
   remotely, making it possible for a text display operation to directly
   perform some unwanted action.  As such, the ability to program keys
   SHOULD be blocked either by filtering or by disabling the ability to
   program keys entirely.

   Note that it is also possible to construct XML documents that make
   use of what XML terms "entity references" (using the XML meaning of
   the term "entity" as described in Section 2), to construct repeated



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   expansions of text.  Recursive expansions are prohibited by [XML] and
   XML processors are required to detect them.  However, even non-
   recursive expansions may cause problems with the finite computing
   resources of computers, if they are performed many times.  (Entity A
   consists of 100 copies of entity B, which in turn consists of 100
   copies of entity C, and so on)













































Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [ASCII]    "US-ASCII. Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard
              Code for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1986, 1986.

   [CSS]      Bos, B., Lie, H., Lilley, C., and I. Jacobs, "Cascading
              Style Sheets, level 2 (CSS2) Specification", World Wide
              Web Consortium Recommendation REC-CSS2, May 1998,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/>.

   [ISO8859]  "ISO-8859. International Standard -- Information
              Processing -- 8-bit Single-Byte Coded Graphic Character
              Sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987",
              1987.

   [MathML]   Carlisle, D., Ion, P., Miner, R., and N. Poppelier,
              "Mathematical Markup Language (MathML) Version 2.0 (Second
              Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
              MathML2, October 2003, <http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/>.

   [PNG]      Boutell, T., "PNG (Portable Network Graphics)
              Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-png, October 1996,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-png>.

   [RFC1652]  Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
              Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",
              RFC 1652, July 1994.

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC2046]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
              November 1996.

   [RFC2077]  Nelson, S., Parks, C., and Mitra, "The Model Primary
              Content Type for Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions",
              RFC 2077, January 1997.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2445]  Dawson, F. and D. Stenerson, "Internet Calendaring and
              Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)",



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


              RFC 2445, November 1998.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC3023]  Murata, M., St.Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
              Types", January 2001.

   [RFC3501]  Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
              4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", RFC 3629, November  2003.

   [RFC3977]  Feather, B., "Network News Transfer Protocol", RFC 3977,
              October 2006.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax.", RFC 3986,
              January 2005.

   [RFC3987]  DUeerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, July 2005.

   [RFC4288]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
              Registration Procedures", RFC 4288, December  2005.

   [RFC4289]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures",
              RFC 4289, December  2005.

   [RFC4918]  Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring
              -- WEBDAV", RFC 4918, June 2007.

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              October 2008.

   [SGML]     International Standard Organization, "Information
              Processing -- Text and Office Systems -- Standard
              Generalized Markup Language (SGML)", ISO 8879,
              October 1986.

   [SVG]      Ferraiolo, J., Fujisawa, F., and D. Jackson, "Scalable
              Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.1 Specification", World Wide Web
              Consortium  Recommendation SVG, January 2004,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/>.




Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 38]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   [SVGMediaType]
              Anderson, O., "Media Type Registration for image/svg+xml",
              December 2008,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/mimereg.html>.

   [TAGMIME]  Bray, T., Ed., "Internet Media Type registration,
              consistency of use", April 2004,
              <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime>.

   [UML]      Object Management Group, "OMG Unified Modeling Language
              Specification, Version 1.3", OMG Specification ad/
              99-06-08, June 1999, <http://www.omg.org/uml/>.

   [XBase]    Marsh, J., "XML Base", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation xmlbase, June 2001,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase>.

   [XHTML]    Pemberton, S. and et al, "XHTML 1.0: The Extensible
              HyperText Markup Language", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation xhtml1, December 1999,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1>.

   [XML]      Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and
              F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
              Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
              xml, November 2008, <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml>.

   [XML1.1]   Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E.,
              Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language
              (XML) 1.1", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
              xml, April 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11>.

   [XPointerElement]
              Grosso, P., Maler, E., Marsh, J., and N. Walsh, "XPointer
              element() Scheme", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-XPointer-Element, March 2003,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element/>.

   [XPointerFramework]
              Grosso, P., Maler, E., Marsh, J., and N. Walsh, "XPointer
              Framework", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
              XPointer-Framework, March 2003,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/>.

   [XPointerXmlns]
              DeRose, S., Daniel, R., Maler, E., and J. Marsh, "XPointer
              xmlns() Scheme", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-XPointer-Xmlns, March 2003,



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 39]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xmlns/>.

   [XPtrReg]  Hazael-Massieux, D., "XPointer Registry", 2005,
              <http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/>.

   [XSLT]     Clark , J., "XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0",
              World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation xslt,
              November 1999, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1557]  Choi, U., Chon, K., and H. Park, "Korean Character
              Encoding for Internet Messages", RFC 1557, December 1993.

   [RFC1874]  Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December 1995.

   [RFC2130]  Weider, C., Cecilia Preston, C., Simonsen, K., Alvestrand,
              H., Atkinson, R., Crispin, M., and P. Svanberg, "The
              Report of the IAB Character Set Workshop held 29 February
              - 1 March, 1996", RFC 2130, April 1997.

   [RFC2376]  Whitehead, E. and M. Murata, "XML Media Types", RFC 2376,
              July 1998.

   [RFC2703]  Klyne, G., "Protocol-independent Content Negotiation
              Framework", RFC 2703, September 1999.

   [RFC2781]  Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO
              10646", RFC 2781, Februrary 2000.

   [RFC2801]  Burdett, D., "Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP
              Version 1.0", RFC 2801, April 2000.

   [RFC3870]  3870, A., "application/rdf+xml Media Type Registration",
              RFC 3870, September 2004.

   [RFC3902]  Baker, M. and M. Nottingham, "The "application/soap+xml"
              media type", RFC 3902, September 2004.

   [RFC5013]  Kunze, J. and T. Baker, "Dublin Core Metadata for Resource
              Discovery", RFC 5013, August 2007.










Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 40]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


Appendix A.  Why Use the '+xml' Suffix for XML-Based MIME Types?

   Although the use of a suffix was not considered as part of the
   original MIME architecture, this choice is considered to provide the
   most functionality with the least potential for interoperability
   problems or lack of future extensibility.  The alternatives to the
   '+xml' suffix and the reason for its selection are described below.

A.1.  Why not just use text/xml or application/xml and let the XML
      processor dispatch to the correct application based on the
      referenced DTD?

   text/xml and application/xml remain useful in many situations,
   especially for document-oriented applications that involve combining
   XML with a stylesheet in order to present the data.  However, XML is
   also used to define entirely new data types, and an XML-based format
   such as image/svg+xml fits the definition of a MIME media type
   exactly as well as image/png [PNG] does.  (Note that image/svg+xml is
   not yet registered.)  Although extra functionality is available for
   MIME processors that are also XML processors, XML-based media types
   -- even when treated as opaque, non-XML media types -- are just as
   useful as any other media type and should be treated as such.

   Since MIME dispatchers work off of the MIME type, use of text/xml or
   application/xml to label discrete media types will hinder correct
   dispatching and general interoperability.  Finally, many XML
   documents use neither DTDs nor namespaces, yet are perfectly legal
   XML.

A.2.  Why not create a new subtree (e.g., image/xml.svg) to represent
      XML MIME types?

   The subtree under which a media type is registered -- IETF, vendor
   (*/vnd.*), or personal (*/prs.*); see [RFC4288] and [RFC4289] for
   details -- is completely orthogonal from whether the media type uses
   XML syntax or not.  The suffix approach allows XML document types to
   be identified within any subtree.  The vendor subtree, for example,
   is likely to include a large number of XML-based document types.  By
   using a suffix, rather than setting up a separate subtree, those
   types may remain in the same location in the tree of MIME types that
   they would have occupied had they not been based on XML.

A.3.  Why not create a new top-level MIME type for XML-based media
      types?

   The top-level MIME type (e.g., model/* [RFC2077]) determines what
   kind of content the type is, not what syntax it uses.  For example,
   agents using image/* to signal acceptance of any image format should



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 41]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   certainly be given access to media type image/svg+xml, which is in
   all respects a standard image subtype.  It just happens to use XML to
   describe its syntax.  The two aspects of the media type are
   completely orthogonal.

   XML-based data types will most likely be registered in ALL top-level
   categories.  Potential, though currently unregistered, examples could
   include application/mathml+xml [MathML], model/uml+xml [UML], and
   image/svg+xml [SVG].

A.4.  Why not just have the MIME processor 'sniff' the content to
      determine whether it is XML?

   Rather than explicitly labeling XML-based media types, the processor
   could look inside each type and see whether or not it is XML.  The
   processor could also cache a list of XML-based media types.

   Although this method might work acceptably for some mail
   applications, it would fail completely in many other uses of MIME.
   For instance, an XML-based web crawler would have no way of
   determining whether a file is XML except to fetch it and check.  The
   same issue applies in some IMAP4 [RFC3501] mail applications, where
   the client first fetches the MIME type as part of the message
   structure and then decides whether to fetch the MIME entity.
   Requiring these fetches just to determine whether the MIME type is
   XML could have significant bandwidth and latency disadvantages in
   many situations.

   Sniffing XML also isn't as simple as it might seem.  DOCTYPE
   declarations aren't required, and they can appear fairly deep into a
   document under certain unpreventable circumstances.  (E.g., the XML
   declaration, comments, and processing instructions can occupy space
   before the DOCTYPE declaration.)  Even sniffing the DOCTYPE isn't
   completely reliable, thanks to a variety of issues involving default
   values for namespaces within external DTDs and overrides inside the
   internal DTD.  Finally, the variety in potential character encodings
   (something XML provides tools to deal with), also makes reliable
   sniffing less likely.

A.5.  Why not use a MIME parameter to specify that a media type uses XML
      syntax?

   For example, one could use "Content-Type: application/iotp;
   alternate-type=text/xml" or "Content-Type: application/iotp;
   syntax=xml".

   Section 5 of [RFC2045] says that "Parameters are modifiers of the
   media subtype, and as such do not fundamentally affect the nature of



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 42]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   the content".  However, all XML-based media types are by their nature
   always XML.  Parameters, as they have been defined in the MIME
   architecture, are never invariant across all instantiations of a
   media type.

   More practically, very few if any MIME dispatchers and other MIME
   agents support dispatching off of a parameter.  While MIME agents on
   the receiving side will need to be updated in either case to support
   (or fall back to) generic XML processing, it has been suggested that
   it is easier to implement this functionality when acting off of the
   media type rather than a parameter.  More important, sending agents
   require no update to properly tag an image as "image/svg+xml", but
   few if any sending agents currently support always tagging certain
   content types with a parameter.

A.6.  How about labeling with parameters in the other direction (e.g.,
      application/xml; Content-Feature=iotp)?

   This proposal fails under the simplest case, of a user with neither
   knowledge of XML nor an XML-capable MIME dispatcher.  In that case,
   the user's MIME dispatcher is likely to dispatch the content to an
   XML processing application when the correct default behavior should
   be to dispatch the content to the application responsible for the
   content type (e.g., an ecommerce engine for application/iotp+xml
   [RFC2801], once this media type is registered).

   Note that even if the user had already installed the appropriate
   application (e.g., the ecommerce engine), and that installation had
   updated the MIME registry, many operating system level MIME
   registries such as .mailcap in Unix and HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT in Windows
   do not currently support dispatching off a parameter, and cannot
   easily be upgraded to do so.  And, even if the operating system were
   upgraded to support this, each MIME dispatcher would also separately
   need to be upgraded.

A.7.  How about a new superclass MIME parameter that is defined to apply
      to all MIME types (e.g., Content-Type: application/iotp;
      $superclass=xml)?

   This combines the problems of Appendix A.5 and Appendix A.6.

   If the sender attaches an image/svg+xml file to a message and
   includes the instructions "Please copy the French text on the road
   sign", someone with an XML-aware MIME client and an XML browser but
   no support for SVG can still probably open the file and copy the
   text.  By contrast, with superclasses, the sender must add superclass
   support to her existing mailer AND the receiver must add superclass
   support to his before this transaction can work correctly.



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 43]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   If the receiver comes to rely on the superclass tag being present and
   applications are deployed relying on that tag (as always seems to
   happen), then only upgraded senders will be able to interoperate with
   those receiving applications.

A.8.  What about adding a new parameter to the Content-Disposition
      header or creating a new Content-Structure header to indicate XML
      syntax?

   This has nearly identical problems to Appendix A.7, in that it
   requires both senders and receivers to be upgraded, and few if any
   operating systems and MIME dispatchers support working off of
   anything other than the MIME type.

A.9.  How about a new Alternative-Content-Type header?

   This is better than Appendix A.8, in that no extra functionality
   needs to be added to a MIME registry to support dispatching of
   information other than standard content types.  However, it still
   requires both sender and receiver to be upgraded, and it will also
   fail in many cases (e.g., web hosting to an outsourced server), where
   the user can set MIME types (often through implicit mapping to file
   extensions), but has no way of adding arbitrary HTTP headers.

A.10.  How about using a conneg tag instead (e.g., accept-features:
       (syntax=xml))?

   When the conneg protocol is fully defined, this may potentially be a
   reasonable thing to do.  But given the limited current state of
   conneg [RFC2703] development, it is not a credible replacement for a
   MIME-based solution.

   Also, note that adding a content-type parameter doesn't work with
   conneg either, since conneg only deals with media types, not their
   parameters.  This is another illustration of the limits of parameters
   for MIME dispatchers.

A.11.  How about a third-level content-type, such as text/xml/rdf?

   MIME explicitly defines two levels of content type, the top-level for
   the kind of content and the second-level for the specific media type.
   [RFC4288] and [RFC4289] extends this in an interoperable way by using
   prefixes to specify separate trees for IETF, vendor, and personal
   registrations.  This specification also extends the two-level type by
   using the '+xml' suffix.  In both cases, processors that are unaware
   of these later specifications treat them as opaque and continue to
   interoperate.  By contrast, adding a third-level type would break the
   current MIME architecture and cause numerous interoperability



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 44]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   failures.

A.12.  Why use the plus ('+') character for the suffix '+xml'?

   As specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC2045], a tspecial can't be used:

      tspecials :=
      "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" /
      "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <">
      "/" / "[" / "]" / "?" / "="

   It was thought that "." would not be a good choice since it is
   already used as an additional hierarchy delimiter.  Also, "*" has a
   common wildcard meaning, and "-" and "_" are common word separators
   and easily confused.  The characters %'`#& are frequently used for
   quoting or comments and so are not ideal.

   That leaves: ~!$^+{}|

   Note that "-" is used heavily in the current registry. "$" and "_"
   are used once each.  The others are currently unused.

   It was thought that '+' expressed the semantics that a MIME type can
   be treated (for example) as both scalable vector graphics AND ALSO as
   XML; it is both simultaneously.

A.13.  What is the semantic difference between application/foo and
       application/foo+xml?

   MIME processors that are unaware of XML will treat the '+xml' suffix
   as completely opaque, so it is essential that no extra semantics be
   assigned to its presence.  Therefore, application/foo and
   application/foo+xml SHOULD be treated as completely independent media
   types.  Although, for example, text/calendar+xml could be an XML
   version of text/calendar [RFC2445], it is possible that this
   (hypothetical) new media type would include new semantics as well as
   new syntax, and in any case, there would be many applications that
   support text/calendar but had not yet been upgraded to support text/
   calendar+xml.

A.14.  What happens when an even better markup language (e.g., EBML) is
       defined, or a new category of data?

   In the ten years that MIME has existed, XML is the first generic data
   format that has seemed to justify special treatment, so it is hoped
   that no further suffixes will be necessary.  However, if some are
   later defined, and these documents were also XML, they would need to
   specify that the '+xml' suffix is always the outermost suffix (e.g.,



Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 45]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


   application/foo+ebml+xml not application/foo+xml+ebml).  If they were
   not XML, then they would use a regular suffix (e.g., application/
   foo+ebml).

A.15.  Why must I use the '+xml' suffix for my new XML-based media type?

   You don't have to, but unless you have a good reason to explicitly
   disallow generic XML processing, you should use the suffix so as not
   to curtail the options of future users and developers.

   Whether the inventors of a media type, today, design it for dispatch
   to generic XML processing machinery (and most won't) is not the
   critical issue.  The core notion is that the knowledge that some
   media type happens to use XML syntax opens the door to unanticipated
   kinds of processing beyond those envisioned by its inventors, and on
   this basis identifying such encoding is a good and useful thing.

   Developers of new media types are often tightly focused on a
   particular type of processing that meets current needs.  But there is
   no need to rule out generic processing as well, which could make your
   media type more valuable over time.  It is believed that registering
   with the '+xml' suffix will cause no interoperability problems
   whatsoever, while it may enable significant new functionality and
   interoperability now and in the future.  So, the conservative
   approach is to include the '+xml' suffix.

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.

















Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 46]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 3023

   There are numerous and significant differences between this
   specification and [RFC3023], which it obsoletes.  This appendix
   summarizes the major differences only.

   First, text/xml and text/xml-external-parsed-entity are deprecated.
   Second, XPointer ([XPointerFramework] and [XPointerElement] and
   [XPointerXmlns]) has been added as fragment identifier syntax for
   "application/xml", and the XPointer Registry ([XPtrReg]) mentioned.
   Third, [XBase] has been added as a mechanism for specifying base
   URIs.  Fourth, the language regarding charsets was updated to
   correspond to the W3C TAG finding Internet Media Type registration,
   consistency of use [TAGMIME].  Fifth, many references are updated.





































Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 47]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


Appendix C.  Acknowledgements

   This document reflects the input of numerous participants to the
   ietf-xml-mime@imc.org mailing list, though any errors are the
   responsibility of the authors.  Special thanks to:

   Mark Baker, James Clark, Dan Connolly, Martin Duerst, Ned Freed,
   Yaron Goland, Rick Jelliffe, Larry Masinter, David Megginson, Keith
   Moore, Chris Newman, Gavin Nicol, Marshall Rose, Jim Whitehead and
   participants of the XML activity at the W3C.

   Jim Whitehead and Simon St.Laurent are editors of [RFC2376] and
   [RFC3023], respectively.






































Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 48]

Internet-Draft               XML Media Types              September 2009


Authors' Addresses

   MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
   IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
   1623-14, Shimotsuruma
   Yamato-shi, Kanagawa-ken  242-8502
   Japan

   Phone: +81-46-215-4678
   Email: eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp


   Dan Kohn
   skymoon ventures
   3045 Park Boulevard
   Palo Alto, California  94306
   USA

   Phone: +1-650-327-2600
   Email: dan@dankohn.com
   URI:   http://www.dankohn.com/


   Chris Lilley
   World Wide Web Consortium
   2004, Route des Lucioles - B.P. 93 06902
   Sophia Antipolis Cedex
   France

   Email: chris@w3.org
   URI:   http://www.w3.org/People/chris/




















Murata, et al.           Expires March 28, 2010                [Page 49]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/