[1] RFC 3023 XML 媒体型は、 MIME や HTTP などの媒体型が使われる場面での XML 実体の取扱いを規定しています。

RFC 3023 は RFC2376 を廃止しました。

[3024] RFC 3023 は RFC 7303 により廃止されました。

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998 2001). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document proposes two standardizes five new media types, -- text/xml, and application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd -- for use in exchanging network entities which that are conforming related to the Extensible Markup Language (XML). 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 (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) 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 RFC 2376 are (1) the addition of text/xml- external-parsed-entity, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd, (2) the '+xml' suffix convention (which also updates the RFC 2048 registration process), and (3) the discussion of "utf-16le" and "utf-16be".

Table of Contents

  1. 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................2
  2. 2 NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS ..........................................3
  3. 3 XML MEDIA TYPES .................................................3
  4. 3.1 Text/xml Registration ........................................3
  5. 3.2 Application/xml Registration .................................6
  6. 4 SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS .........................................8
  7. 5 THE BYTE ORDER MARK (BOM) AND CONVERSIONS TO/FROM UTF-16 ........9
  8. 6 EXAMPLES ........................................................9
  9. 6.1 text/xml with UTF-8 Charset .................................10
  10. 6.2 text/xml with UTF-16 Charset ................................10
  11. 6.3 text/xml with ISO-2022-KR Charset ...........................10
  12. 6.4 text/xml with Omitted Charset ...............................11
  13. 6.5 application/xml with UTF-16 Charset .........................11
  14. 6.6 application/xml with ISO-2022-KR Charset ....................11
  15. 6.7 application/xml with Omitted Charset and UTF-16 XML Entity ..12
  16. 6.8 application/xml with Omitted Charset and UTF-8 Entity .......12
  17. 6.9 application/xml with Omitted Charset and Internal Encoding Declaration.......................................................12
  18. 7 REFERENCES .....................................................13
  19. 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................14
  20. 9 ADDRESSES OF AUTHORS ...........................................14
  21. 10 FULL COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ......................................15
  1. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  2. 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  3. 3. XML Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  4. 3.1 Text/xml Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
  5. 3.2 Application/xml Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
  6. 3.3 Text/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration . . . . . . . . 11
  7. 3.4 Application/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration . . . . 12
  8. 3.5 Application/xml-dtd Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
  9. 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
  10. 4. The Byte Order Mark (BOM) and Conversions to/from the UTF-16 Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
  11. 5. Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
  12. 6. The Base URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
  13. 7. A Naming Convention for XML-Based Media Types . . . . . . . 16
  14. 7.1 Referencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
  15. 8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
  16. 8.1 Text/xml with UTF-8 Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
  17. 8.2 Text/xml with UTF-16 Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
  18. 8.3 Text/xml with UTF-16BE Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
  19. 8.4 Text/xml with ISO-2022-KR Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
  20. 8.5 Text/xml with Omitted Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
  21. 8.6 Application/xml with UTF-16 Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
  22. 8.7 Application/xml with UTF-16BE Charset . . . . . . . . . . . 21
  23. 8.8 Application/xml with ISO-2022-KR Charset . . . . . . . . . . 21
  24. 8.9 Application/xml with Omitted Charset and UTF-16 XML MIME Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
  25. 8.10 Application/xml with Omitted Charset and UTF-8 Entity . . . 22
  26. 8.11 Application/xml with Omitted Charset and Internal Encoding Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
  27. 8.12 Text/xml-external-parsed-entity with UTF-8 Charset . . . . . 22
  28. 8.13 Application/xml-external-parsed-entity with UTF-16 Charset . 23
  29. 8.14 Application/xml-external-parsed-entity with UTF-16BE Charset 23
  30. 8.15 Application/xml-dtd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
  31. 8.16 Application/mathml+xml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
  32. 8.17 Application/xslt+xml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
  33. 8.18 Application/rdf+xml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
  34. 8.19 Image/svg+xml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
  35. 8.20 INCONSISTENT EXAMPLE: Text/xml with UTF-8 Charset . . . . . 25
  36. 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
  37. 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
  38. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
  39. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
  40. A. Why Use the '+xml' Suffix for XML-Based MIME Types? . . . . 32
  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? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
  42. A.2 Why not create a new subtree (e.g., image/xml.svg) to represent XML MIME types? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
  43. A.3 Why not create a new top-level MIME type for XML-based media types? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
  44. A.4 Why not just have the MIME processor 'sniff' the content to determine whether it is XML? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
  45. A.5 Why not use a MIME parameter to specify that a media type uses XML syntax? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
  46. A.6 How about labeling with parameters in the other direction (e.g., application/xml; Content-Feature=iotp)? . . . . . . . 34
  47. 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)? . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
  48. A.8 What about adding a new parameter to the Content-Disposition header or creating a new Content-Structure header to indicate XML syntax? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
  49. A.9 How about a new Alternative-Content-Type header? . . . . . . 35
  50. A.10 How about using a conneg tag instead (e.g., accept-features: (syntax=xml))? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
  51. A.11 How about a third-level content-type, such as text/xml/rdf? 35
  52. A.12 Why use the plus ('+') character for the suffix '+xml'? . . 36
  53. A.13 What is the semantic difference between application/foo and application/foo+xml? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
  54. A.14 What happens when an even better markup language (e.g., EBML) is defined, or a new category of data? . . . . . . . . 36
  55. A.15 Why must I use the '+xml' suffix for my new XML-based media type? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
  56. B. Changes from RFC 2376 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
  57. C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
  58. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

目次

[3025] 注: 両 RFC 間で幾つかの節の順序が入れ替わっています。 ここでは新しい順に並べています。

規定

[3026] RFC 3023 の規定については、次の各項を参照してください。

メモ

[3] RFC Errata http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html に修正があります。