I'll take a first cut at it.
Melinda
-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 7:46 AM
To: fujisawa.jun%canon.co.jp at interlock.lexmark.com
Cc: xp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: XP> XHTML-Print media type
Jun:
I've changed the reference to RFC3023. I wasn't aware of that RFC.
As to the explanation.... anyone want to contribute?
**********************************************
Don Wright don at lexmark.com
Member, IEEE SA Standards Board
Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org
Director, Alliances & Standards
Lexmark International
740 New Circle Rd
Lexington, Ky 40550
859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
**********************************************
Jun Fujisawa <fujisawa.jun%canon.co.jp at interlock.lexmark.com> on 03/09/2002
03:48:38 AM
To: "Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
cc: PWG XHTML-Print <xp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com> (bcc: Don
Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: XP> XHTML-Print media type
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>