Don,
At 9:57 AM -0500 02.3.8, don at lexmark.com wrote:
>The reference to RFC3236 was added as an INFORMATIONAL reference based on
>discussion at the LA meeting.
It seems to me more appropriate to have a reference to RFC3023
if we just want to give background information on the use of "+xml"
extension in XHTML-Print MIME type.
"RFC3023 - XML Media Types", M. Murata, S. St.Laurent, and D. Kohn.
It is available from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt.
People might wonder why XHTML-Print does not follow RFC3236
if they see an explicit reference in the specification.
How about add a sentence explaining the rational behind the introduction
of our own MIME type in Section 6.1?
--
Jun Fujisawa
<mailto:fujisawa.jun at canon.co.jp>