Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
9190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 7303

XML Media Types

Pages: 35
Proposed Standard
Errata
Obsoletes:  3023
Updates:  6839

Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       H. Thompson
Request for Comments: 7303                       University of Edinburgh
Obsoletes: 3023                                                C. Lilley
Updates: 6839                                                        W3C
Category: Standards Track                                      July 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721


                            XML Media Types

Abstract

This specification 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 defining text/xml and text/ xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective application/ types. This specification also standardizes the '+xml' suffix for naming media types outside of these five types when those media types represent XML MIME entities. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7303.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Characters, Encodings, Charsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. MIME Entities, XML Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Encoding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. XML MIME Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. XML MIME Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. The BOM and Encoding Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. XML Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. XML MIME Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Using '+xml' when Registering XML-Based Media Types . . . 11 4.3. Registration Guidelines for XML-Based Media Types Not Using '+xml' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. The Base URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. XML Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1. UTF-8 Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 3
     8.2.  UTF-16 Charset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.3.  Omitted Charset and 8-Bit MIME Entity . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.4.  Omitted Charset and 16-Bit MIME Entity  . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.5.  Omitted Charset, No Internal Encoding Declaration . . . .  17
     8.6.  UTF-16BE Charset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.7.  Non-UTF Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.8.  INCONSISTENT EXAMPLE: Conflicting Charset and Internal
           Encoding Declaration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.9.  INCONSISTENT EXAMPLE: Conflicting Charset and BOM . . . .  18
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.1.  application/xml Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.2.  text/xml Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.3.  application/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration . . .  21
     9.4.  text/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration  . . . . . .  22
     9.5.  application/xml-dtd Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.6.  The '+xml' Naming Convention for XML-Based Media Types  .  23
       9.6.1.  The '+xml' Structured Syntax Suffix Registration  . .  23
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix A.  Why Use the '+xml' Suffix for XML-Based MIME Types?   32
   Appendix B.  Core XML Specifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix C.  Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     C.1.  General Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     C.2.  Considerations for Producers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     C.3.  Considerations for Consumers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix D.  Changes from RFC 3023  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix E.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 4

1. Introduction

The World Wide Web Consortium has issued the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 [XML] and Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 [XML1.1] specifications. To enable the exchange of XML network entities, this specification standardizes three media types (application/xml, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd), two aliases (text/xml and text/xml-external- parsed-entity), and a naming convention for identifying XML-based MIME media types (using '+xml'). 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, and in line with the recognition in [RFC6838] of structured syntax name suffixes, a suffix of '+xml' is registered in Section 9.6. This will allow generic XML-based tools -- browsers, editors, search engines, and other processors -- to work with all XML-based media types. This specification replaces [RFC3023]. Major differences are in the areas of alignment of text/xml and text/xml-external-parsed-entity with application/xml and application/xml-external-parsed-entity respectively, the addition of XPointer and XML Base as fragment identifiers and base URIs, respectively, integration of the XPointer Registry and updating of many references.

2. Notational Conventions

2.1. Requirements Language

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

2.2. Characters, Encodings, Charsets

Both XML (in an XML or Text declaration using the encoding pseudo- attribute) and MIME (in a Content-Type header field using the charset parameter) use a common set of labels [IANA-CHARSETS] to identify the MIME charset (mapping from byte stream to character sequence [RFC2978]). In this specification, we will use the phrases "charset parameter" and "encoding declaration" to refer to whatever MIME charset is specified by a MIME charset parameter or XML encoding declaration,
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 5
   respectively.  We reserve the phrase "character encoding" (or, when
   the context makes the intention clear, simply "encoding") for the
   MIME charset actually used in a particular XML MIME entity.

   [UNICODE] defines three "encoding forms", namely UTF-8, UTF-16, and
   UTF-32.  As UTF-8 can only be serialized in one way, the only
   possible label for UTF-8-encoded documents when serialised into MIME
   entities is "utf-8".  UTF-16 XML documents, however, can be
   serialised into MIME entities in one of two ways: either big-endian,
   labelled (optionally) "utf-16" or "utf-16be", or little-endian,
   labelled (optionally) "utf-16" or "utf-16le".  See Section 3.3 below
   for how a Byte Order Mark (BOM) is required when the "utf-16"
   serialization is used.

   UTF-32 has four potential serializations, of which only two (UTF-32BE
   and UTF-32LE) are given names in [UNICODE].  Support for the various
   serializations varies widely, and security concerns about their use
   have been raised (for example, see [Sivonen]).  The use of UTF-32 is
   NOT RECOMMENDED for XML MIME entities.

2.3. MIME Entities, XML Entities

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 specification, "XML MIME entity" is defined as the latter (an XML entity) encapsulated in the former (a MIME entity). Furthermore, XML provides for the naming and referencing of entities for purposes of inclusion and/or substitution. In this specification, "XML-entity declaration/reference/..." is used to avoid confusion when referring to such cases.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 6

3. Encoding Considerations

The registrations below all address issues around character encoding in the same way, by referencing this section. As many as three distinct sources of information about character encoding may be present for an XML MIME entity: a charset parameter, a BOM (see Section 3.3 below), and an XML encoding declaration (see Section 4.3.3 of [XML]). Ensuring consistency among these sources requires coordination between entity authors and MIME agents (that is, processes that package, transfer, deliver, and/or receive MIME entities). The use of UTF-8, without a BOM, is RECOMMENDED for all XML MIME entities. Some MIME agents will be what we will call "XML-aware", that is, capable of processing XML MIME entities as XML and detecting the XML encoding declaration (or its absence). All three sources of information about encoding are available to them, and they can be expected to be aware of this specification. Other MIME agents will not be XML-aware; thus, they cannot know anything about the XML encoding declaration. Not only do they lack one of the three sources of information about encoding, they are also less likely to be aware of or responsive to this specification. Some MIME agents, such as proxies and transcoders, both consume and produce MIME entities. This mixture of two kinds of agents handling XML MIME entities increases the complexity of the coordination task. The recommendations given below are intended to maximise interoperability in the face of this: on the one hand, by mandating consistent production and encouraging maximally robust forms of production and, on the other, by specifying recovery strategies to maximize the interoperability of consumers when the production rules are broken.

3.1. XML MIME Producers

XML-aware MIME producers SHOULD supply a charset parameter and/or an appropriate BOM with non-UTF-8-encoded XML MIME entities that lack an encoding declaration. Such producers SHOULD remove or correct an encoding declaration that is known to be incorrect (for example, as a result of transcoding).
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 7
   XML-aware MIME producers MUST supply an XML text declaration at the
   beginning of non-UNICODE XML external parsed entities that would
   otherwise begin with the hexadecimal octet sequences 0xFE 0xFF, 0xFF
   0xFE or 0xEF 0xBB 0xBF, in order to avoid the mistaken detection of a
   BOM.

   XML-unaware MIME producers MUST NOT supply a charset parameter with
   an XML MIME entity unless the entity's character encoding is reliably
   known.  Note that this is particularly relevant for central
   configuration of web servers, where configuring a default for the
   charset parameter will almost certainly violate this requirement.

   XML MIME producers are RECOMMENDED to provide means for users to
   control what value, if any, is given to charset parameters for XML
   MIME entities, for example, by giving users control of the
   configuration of Web server filename-to-Content-Type-header mappings
   on a file-by-file or suffix basis.

3.2. XML MIME Consumers

For XML MIME consumers, the question of priority arises in cases when the available character encoding information is not consistent. Again, we must distinguish between XML-aware and XML-unaware agents. When a charset parameter is specified for an XML MIME entity, the normative component of the [XML] specification leaves the question open as to how to determine the encoding with which to attempt to process the entity. This is true independently of whether or not the entity contains in-band encoding information, that is, either a BOM (Section 3.3) or an XML encoding declaration, both, or neither. In particular, in the case where there is in-band information and it conflicts with the charset parameter, the [XML] specification does not specify which is authoritative. In its (non-normative) Appendix F, it defers to this specification: [T]he preferred method of handling conflict should be specified as part of the higher-level protocol used to deliver XML. In particular, please refer to [IETF RFC 3023] or its successor... Accordingly, to conform with deployed processors and content and to avoid conflicting with this or other normative specifications, this specification sets the priority as follows: A BOM (Section 3.3) is authoritative if it is present in an XML MIME entity; In the absence of a BOM (Section 3.3), the charset parameter is authoritative if it is present.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 8
   Whenever the above determines a source of encoding information as
   authoritative, consumers SHOULD process XML MIME entities based on
   that information.

   When MIME producers conform to the requirements stated above
   (Section 3.1, Section 3) inconsistencies will not arise -- the above
   statement of priorities only has practical impact in the case of non-
   conforming XML MIME entities.  In the face of inconsistencies, no
   uniform strategy can deliver the 'right' answer every time: the
   purpose of specifying one here is to encourage convergence over time,
   first on the part of consumers, then on the part of producers.

   For XML-aware consumers, note that Section 4.3.3 of [XML] does _not_
   make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding
   declaration (or the UTF-8 default in the absence of encoding
   declaration and BOM) to be inconsistent, although such consumers
   might choose to issue a warning in this case.

   If an XML MIME entity is received where the charset parameter is
   omitted, no information is being provided about the character
   encoding by the MIME Content-Type header.  XML-aware consumers MUST
   follow the requirements in section 4.3.3 of [XML] that directly
   address this case.  XML-unaware MIME consumers SHOULD NOT assume a
   default encoding in this case.

3.3. The BOM and Encoding Conversions

Section 4.3.3 of [XML] specifies that UTF-16 XML MIME entities not labelled as "utf-16le" or "utf-16be" MUST begin with a BOM, U+FEFF, which appears as the hexadecimal octet sequence 0xFE 0xFF (big- endian) or 0xFF 0xFE (little-endian). [XML] 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 an encoding other than UTF-8 MUST strip the BOM before conversion. Similarly, when converting from another encoding into UTF-16, either without a charset parameter or labelled "utf-16", the BOM MUST be added unless the original encoding was UTF-8 and a BOM was already present, in which case it MUST be transcoded into the appropriate UTF-16 BOM. Section 4.3.3 of [XML] also allows for UTF-8 XML MIME entities to begin with a BOM, which appears as the hexadecimal octet sequence 0xEF 0xBB 0xBF. This is likewise defined to be an encoding signature, and not part of either the markup or the character data of the XML document.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 9
   Applications that convert XML from UTF-8 to an encoding other than
   UTF-16 MUST strip the BOM, if present, before conversion.
   Applications that convert XML into UTF-8 MAY add a BOM.

   In addition to the MIME charset "utf-16", [RFC2781] introduces
   "utf-16le" (little-endian) and "utf-16be" (big-endian).  When an XML
   MIME entity is encoded in "utf-16le" or "utf-16be", it MUST NOT begin
   with the BOM but SHOULD contain an in-band XML encoding declaration.
   Conversion from UTF-8 or UTF-16 (unlabelled, or labelled with
   "utf-16") to "utf-16be" or "utf-16le" MUST strip a BOM if present.
   Conversion from UTF-16 labelled "utf-16le" or "utf-16be" to UTF-16
   without a label or labelled "utf-16" MUST add the appropriate BOM.
   Conversion from UTF-16 labelled "utf-16le" or "utf-16be" to UTF-8 MAY
   add a UTF-8 BOM, but this is NOT RECOMMENDED.

   Appendix F of [XML] also implies that a UTF-32 BOM may be used in
   conjunction with UTF-32-encoded documents.  As noted above, this
   specification recommends against the use of UTF-32.  If it is used,
   the same considerations as UTF-16 apply with respect to its being a
   signature (not part of the document), transcoding into or out of it,
   and transcoding into or out of the MIME charsets "utf-32le" and "utf-
   32be".  Consumers that do not support UTF-32 SHOULD nonetheless
   recognise UTF-32 signatures in order to give helpful error messages
   (instead of treating them as invalid UTF-16).

4. XML Media Types

4.1. XML MIME Entities

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". Appropriate usage for the types registered below is as follows: document entities: The media types application/xml or text/xml, or a more specific media type (see Section 9.6), SHOULD be used. external DTD subsets: The media type application/xml-dtd SHOULD be used. The media types application/xml and text/xml MUST NOT be used. external parsed entities: The media types application/xml-external- parsed-entity or text/xml-external-parsed-entity SHOULD be used. The media types application/xml and text/xml MUST NOT be used unless the parsed entities are also well-formed "document entities".
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 10
   external parameter entities:  The media type application/xml-dtd
      SHOULD be used.  The media types application/xml and text/xml MUST
      NOT be used.

   Note that [RFC3023] (which this specification obsoletes) recommended
   the use of text/xml and text/xml-external-parsed-entity for document
   entities and external parsed entities, respectively, but described
   handling of character encoding that differed from common
   implementation practice.  These media types are still commonly used,
   and this specification aligns the handling of character encoding with
   industry practice.

   Note that [RFC2376] (which is obsolete) allowed application/xml and
   text/xml to be used for any of the four types, 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.

   Compared to [RFC2376] or [RFC3023], this specification alters the
   handling of character encoding of text/xml and text/xml-external-
   parsed-entity, treating them no differently from the respective
   application/ types.  However, application/xml and application/xml-
   external-parsed-entity are still RECOMMENDED, to avoid possible
   confusion based on the earlier distinction.  The former confusion
   around the question of default character sets for the two text/ types
   no longer arises because

      [RFC7231] changes [RFC2616] by removing the ISO-8859-1 default and
      not defining any default at all;

      [RFC6657] updates [RFC2046] to remove the US-ASCII [ASCII]
      default.

   See Section 3 for the now-unified approach to the charset parameter
   that results.

   XML provides a general framework for defining sequences of structured
   data.  It is often appropriate to define new media types that use XML
   but define a specific application of XML, due to domain-specific
   display, editing, security considerations, or runtime information.
   Furthermore, such media types may allow only UTF-8 and/or UTF-16 and
   prohibit other character sets.  This specification does not prohibit
   such media types; in fact, they are expected to proliferate.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 11
   However, developers of such media types are RECOMMENDED to use this
   specification as a basis for their registration.  See Section 4.2 for
   more detailed recommendations on using the '+xml' suffix for
   registration of such media types.

   An XML document labeled as application/xml or text/xml, or with a
   '+xml' media type, might contain namespace declarations, stylesheet-
   linking processing instructions (PIs), schema information, or other
   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 Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) stylesheet.  Such a
   document might be handled by applications that would use this
   information to dispatch the document for appropriate processing.
   Appendix B lists the core XML specifications that, taken together
   with [XML] itself, show how to determine an XML document's language-
   level semantics and suggest how information about its application-
   level semantics may be locatable.

4.2. Using '+xml' when Registering XML-Based Media Types

In Section 9.6, this specification updates the registration in [RFC6839] for XML-based MIME types (the '+xml' types). When a new media type is introduced for an XML-based format, the name of the media type SHOULD end with '+xml' unless generic XML processing is in some way inappropriate for documents of the new type. 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 check for types that represent XML MIME entities by comparing the last four characters of the subtype to the string '+xml'. (However, note that four of the five media types defined in this specification -- text/ xml, application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-external-parsed-entity -- also represent XML MIME entities while not ending with '+xml'.) NOTE: Section 5.3.2 of [RFC7231] does not support any form of Accept header that will match only '+xml' types. In particular, Accept headers of the form "Accept: */*+xml" are not allowed, and will not work for this purpose. Media types following the naming convention '+xml' SHOULD define the charset parameter for consistency, since XML-generic processing by definition treats all XML MIME entities uniformly as regards character encoding information. However, there are some cases that the charset parameter need not be defined. For example:
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 12
      When an XML-based media type is restricted to UTF-8, it is not
      necessary to define the charset parameter.  UTF-8 is the default
      for 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 XML encoding declarations.

   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,
   however -- including in some situations that are difficult to predict
   ahead of time -- the '+xml' convention is to be preferred unless
   there is some particularly compelling reason not to use it.

   The registration process for specific '+xml' media types is described
   in [RFC6838].  New XML-based media type registrations in the IETF
   must follow these guidelines.  When other organisations register XML-
   based media types via the "Specification Required" IANA registration
   policy [RFC5226], the relevant Media Reviewer should ensure that they
   use the '+xml' convention, in order to ensure maximum
   interoperability of their XML-based documents.  Only media subtypes
   that represent XML MIME entities are allowed to register with a
   '+xml' suffix.

   In addition to the changes described above, the change controller has
   been changed to be the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

4.3. Registration Guidelines for XML-Based Media Types Not Using '+xml'

Registrations for new XML-based media types that do _not_ use the '+xml' suffix 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 7303". Defining the charset parameter is RECOMMENDED, since this information can be used by XML processors to determine authoritatively the character encoding of the XML MIME entity in the absence of a BOM. 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".
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 13
   These registrations SHOULD specify that the XML-based media type
   being registered has all of the security considerations described in
   this specification plus any additional considerations specific to
   that media type.

   These registrations SHOULD also make reference to this specification
   in specifying magic numbers, base URIs, and use of the BOM.

   These registrations MAY reference the application/xml registration in
   this document in specifying interoperability and fragment identifier
   considerations, if these considerations are not overridden by issues
   specific to that media type.

5. Fragment Identifiers

Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) can contain fragment identifiers (see Section 3.5 of [RFC3986]). Specifying the syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers is devolved by [RFC3986] to the appropriate media type registration. The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers for the XML media types defined in this specification are based on the [XPointerFramework] W3C Recommendation. It allows simple names and more complex constructions based on named schemes. When the syntax of a fragment identifier part of any URI or Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) ([RFC3987]) with a retrieved media type governed by this specification conforms to the syntax specified in [XPointerFramework], conforming applications MUST interpret such fragment identifiers as designating whatever is specified by the [XPointerFramework] together with any other specifications governing the XPointer schemes used in those identifiers that the applications support. Conforming applications MUST support the 'element' scheme as defined in [XPointerElement], but need not support other schemes. If an XPointer error is reported in the attempt to process the part, this specification does not define an interpretation for the part. A registry of XPointer schemes [XPtrReg] is maintained at the W3C. Generic processors of XML MIME entities SHOULD NOT implement unregistered XPointer schemes ([XPtrRegPolicy] describes requirements and procedures for registering schemes). See Section 4.2 for additional requirements that apply when an XML- based media type follows the naming convention '+xml'. If [XPointerFramework] and [XPointerElement] are inappropriate for some XML-based media type, it SHOULD NOT follow the naming convention '+xml'.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 14
   When a URI has a fragment identifier, it is encoded by a limited
   subset of the repertoire of US-ASCII characters, see
   [XPointerFramework] for details.

6. The Base URI

An XML MIME entity of type application/xml, text/xml, application/ xml-external-parsed-entity, or text/xml-external-parsed-entity MAY use the xml:base attribute, as described in [XMLBase], to embed a base URI in that entity for use in resolving relative URI references (see Section 5.1 of [RFC3986]). Note that the base URI itself might be embedded in a different MIME entity, since the default value for the xml:base attribute can be specified in an external DTD subset or external parameter entity. Since conforming XML processors need not always read and process external entities, the effect of such an external default is uncertain; therefore, its use is NOT RECOMMENDED.

7. XML Versions

application/xml, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, application/ xml-dtd, text/xml, and text/xml-external-parsed-entity are to be used with [XML]. In all examples herein where version="1.0" is shown, it is understood that version="1.1" might also appear, providing the content does indeed conform to [XML1.1]. The normative requirement of this specification upon XML documents and processors 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 first or second edition [XML1.1]. Therefore, references herein to [XML] may be interpreted as referencing any existing version or edition of XML, or any subsequent edition or version that makes no incompatible changes to that section. Specifications and recommendations based on or referring to this RFC SHOULD indicate any limitations on the particular versions or editions of XML to be used.

8. Examples

This section is non-normative. In particular, note that all [RFC2119] language herein reproduces or summarizes the consequences of normative statements already made above, and has no independent normative force, and accordingly does not appear in uppercase.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 15
   The examples below give the MIME Content-Type header, including the
   charset parameter, if present and the XML declaration or Text
   declaration (which includes the encoding declaration) inside the XML
   MIME entity.  For UTF-16 examples, the Byte Order Mark character
   appropriately UTF-16 encoded is denoted as "{BOM}", and the XML or
   Text declaration is assumed to come at the beginning of the XML MIME
   entity, immediately following the encoded BOM.  Note that other MIME
   headers may be present, and the XML MIME entity will normally contain
   other data in addition to the XML declaration; the examples focus on
   the Content-Type header and the encoding declaration for clarity.

   Although they show a content type of 'application/xml', all the
   examples below apply to all five media types declared below in
   Section 9, as well as to any media types declared using the '+xml'
   convention (with the exception of the examples involving the charset
   parameter for any such media types that do not enable its use).  See
   the XML MIME entities table (Section 4.1, Paragraph 1) for discussion
   of which types are appropriate for which varieties of XML MIME
   entity.

8.1. UTF-8 Charset

Content-Type: application/xml; charset=utf-8 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> or <?xml version="1.0"?> UTF-8 is the recommended encoding for use with all the media types defined in this specification. Since the charset parameter is provided and there is no overriding BOM, conformant MIME and XML processors must treat the enclosed entity as UTF-8 encoded. If sent using a 7-bit transport (e.g., SMTP [RFC5321]), in general, a UTF-8 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., BINARY ESMTP or HTTP), no content-transfer-encoding is necessary (or even possible, in the case of HTTP).
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 16

8.2. UTF-16 Charset

Content-Type: application/xml; charset=utf-16 {BOM}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?> or {BOM}<?xml version="1.0"?> For the three application/media types defined above, 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., BINARY ESMTP or HTTP), no content-transfer-encoding is necessary (or even possible, in the case of HTTP). As described in [RFC2781], the UTF-16 family must not be used with media types under the top-level type "text" except over HTTP or HTTPS (see Section A.2 of HTTP [RFC7231] for details). Hence, one of the two text/media types defined above can be used with this example only when the XML MIME entity is transmitted via HTTP or HTTPS, which use a MIME-like mechanism and are binary-clean protocols and hence do not perform CR and LF transformations and allow NUL octets. Since HTTP is binary clean, no content-transfer-encoding is necessary (or even possible).

8.3. Omitted Charset and 8-Bit MIME Entity

Content-Type: application/xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?> Since the charset parameter is not provided in the Content-Type header and there is no overriding BOM, conformant XML processors must treat the "iso-8859-1" encoding as authoritative. Conformant XML- unaware MIME processors should make no assumptions about the character encoding of the XML MIME entity.

8.4. Omitted Charset and 16-Bit MIME Entity

Content-Type: application/xml {BOM}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?> or {BOM}<?xml version="1.0"?>
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 17
   This example shows a 16-bit MIME entity with no charset parameter.
   However, since there is a BOM, conformant processors must treat the
   entity as UTF-16 encoded.

   Omitting the charset parameter is not recommended in conjunction with
   media types under the top-level type "application" when used with
   transports other than HTTP or HTTPS.  Media types under the top-level
   type "text" should not be used for 16-bit MIME with transports other
   than HTTP or HTTPS (see discussion above in
   Section 8.2, Paragraph 7).

8.5. Omitted Charset, No Internal Encoding Declaration

Content-Type: application/xml <?xml version='1.0'?> In this example, the charset parameter has been omitted, there is no internal encoding declaration, and there is no BOM. Since there is no BOM or charset parameter, 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 an encoding of UTF-8. Although the XML MIME entity does not contain an encoding declaration, provided the encoding actually _is_ UTF-8, this is a conforming XML MIME entity. A conformant XML-unaware MIME processor should make no assumptions about the character encoding of the XML MIME entity. See Section 8.1 for transport-related issues for UTF-8 XML MIME entities.

8.6. UTF-16BE Charset

Content-Type: application/xml; charset=utf-16be <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-16be'?> Observe that, as required for this encoding, there is no BOM. Since the charset parameter is provided and there is no overriding BOM, conformant MIME and XML processors must treat the enclosed entity as UTF-16BE encoded. See also the additional considerations in the UTF-16 example in Section 8.2.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 18

8.7. Non-UTF Charset

Content-Type: application/xml; charset=iso-2022-kr <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-2022-kr"?> This example shows the use of a non-UTF character encoding (in this case Hangul, but this example is intended to cover all non-UTF-family character encodings). Since the charset parameter is provided and there is no overriding BOM, conformant processors must treat the enclosed entity as encoded per RFC 1557. Since ISO-2022-KR [RFC1557] has been defined to use only 7 bits of data, no content-transfer-encoding is necessary with any transport: for character sets needing 8 or more bits, considerations such as those discussed above (Sections 8.1 and 8.2) would apply.

8.8. INCONSISTENT EXAMPLE: Conflicting Charset and Internal Encoding Declaration

Content-Type: application/xml; charset=iso-8859-1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> Although the charset parameter is provided in the Content-Type header and there is no BOM and the charset parameter differs from the XML encoding declaration, conformant MIME and XML processors will interoperate. Since the charset parameter is authoritative in the absence of a BOM, conformant processors will treat the enclosed entity as iso-8859-1 encoded. That is, the "UTF-8" encoding declaration will be ignored. Conformant processors generating XML MIME entities must not label conflicting character encoding information between the MIME Content- Type and the XML declaration unless they have definitive information about the actual encoding, for example, as a result of systematic transcoding. In particular, the addition by servers of an explicit, site-wide charset parameter default has frequently lead to interoperability problems for XML documents.

8.9. INCONSISTENT EXAMPLE: Conflicting Charset and BOM

Content-Type: application/xml; charset=iso-8859-1 {BOM}<?xml version="1.0"?>
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 19
   Although the charset parameter is provided in the Content-Type
   header, there is a BOM, so MIME and XML processors may not
   interoperate.  Since the BOM parameter is authoritative for
   conformant XML processors, they will treat the enclosed entity as
   UTF-16 encoded.  That is, the "iso-8859-1" charset parameter will be
   ignored.  XML-unaware MIME processors on the other hand may be
   unaware of the BOM and so treat the entity as encoded in iso-8859-1.

   Conformant processors generating XML MIME entities must not label
   conflicting character encoding information between the MIME Content-
   Type and an entity-initial BOM.

9. IANA Considerations

9.1. application/xml Registration

Type name: application Subtype name: xml Required parameters: none Optional parameters: charset See Section 3. Encoding considerations: Depending on the character encoding used, XML MIME entities can consist of 7bit, 8bit, or binary data [RFC6838]. For 7-bit transports, 7bit data, for example, US- ASCII-encoded data, does not require content-transfer-encoding, but 8bit or binary data, for example, UTF-8 or UTF-16 data, MUST be content-transfer-encoded in quoted-printable or base64. For 8-bit clean transport (e.g., 8BITMIME ESMTP [RFC6152] or NNTP [RFC3977]), 7bit or 8bit data, for example, US-ASCII or UTF-8 data, does not require content-transfer-encoding, but binary data, for example, data with a UTF-16 encoding, MUST be content- transfer-encoded in base64. For binary clean transports (e.g., BINARY ESMTP [RFC3030] or HTTP [RFC7230]), no content-transfer- encoding is necessary (or even possible, in the case of HTTP) for 7bit, 8bit, or binary data. Security considerations: See Section 10. Interoperability considerations: XML has proven to be interoperable across both generic and task-specific applications and for import and export from multiple XML authoring and editing tools. Validating processors provide maximum interoperability, because they have to handle all aspects of XML. Although a non-validating
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 20
      processor may be more efficient, it might not handle all aspects.
      For further information, see Section 2.9 "Standalone Document
      Declaration" and Section 5 "Conformance" of [XML] .

      In practice, character set issues have proved to be the biggest
      source of interoperability problems.  The use of UTF-8, and
      careful attention to the guidelines set out in Section 3, are the
      best ways to avoid such problems.

   Published specification:  Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
      Edition) [XML] or subsequent editions or versions thereof.

   Applications that use this media type:  XML is device, platform, and
      vendor neutral and is supported by generic and task-specific
      applications and a wide range of generic XML tools (editors,
      parsers, Web agents, ...).

   Additional information:

      Magic number(s):  None.

         Although no byte sequences can be counted on to always be
         present, XML MIME entities in ASCII-compatible character sets
         (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 BOM followed by "<?xml").  For more information,
         see Appendix F of [XML].

      File extension(s):  .xml

      Macintosh File Type Code(s):  "TEXT"

      Base URI:  See Section 6

   Person and email address for further information:  See Authors'
      Addresses section

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author:  See Authors' Addresses section

   Change controller:  The XML specification is a work product of the
      World Wide Web Consortium's XML Core Working Group.  The W3C has
      change control over RFC 7303.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 21

9.2. text/xml Registration

The registration information for text/xml is in all respects the same as that given for application/xml above (Section 9.1), except that the "Type name" is "text".

9.3. application/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration

Type name: application Subtype name: xml-external-parsed-entity Required parameters: none Optional parameters: charset See Section 3. Encoding considerations: Same as for application/xml (Section 9.1). Security considerations: See Section 10. 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 enhances interoperability of both XML documents and XML external parsed entities. Published specification: Same as for application/xml (Section 9.1). Applications which use this media type: Same as for application/xml (Section 9.1). Additional information: Magic number(s): Same as for application/xml (Section 9.1). File extension(s): .xml or .ent Macintosh File Type Code(s): "TEXT" Base URI: See Section 6
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 22
   Person and email address for further information:  See Authors'
      Addresses section.

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author:  See Authors' Addresses section.

   Change controller:  The XML specification is a work product of the
      World Wide Web Consortium's XML Core Working Group.  The W3C has
      change control over RFC 7303.

9.4. text/xml-external-parsed-entity Registration

The registration information for text/xml-external-parsed-entity is in all respects the same as that given for application/xml-external- parsed-entity above (Section 9.3), except that the "Type name" is "text".

9.5. application/xml-dtd Registration

Type name: application Subtype name: xml-dtd Required parameters: none Optional parameters: charset See Section 3. Encoding considerations: Same as for application/xml (Section 9.1). Security considerations: See Section 10. Interoperability considerations: XML DTDs have proven to be interoperable by DTD authoring tools and XML validators, among others. Published specification: Same as for application/xml (Section 9.1). Applications which use this media type: DTD authoring tools handle external DTD subsets as well as external parameter entities. XML validators may also access external DTD subsets and external parameter entities.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 23
   Additional information:

      Magic number(s):  Same as for application/xml (Section 9.1).

      File extension(s):  .dtd or .mod

      Macintosh File Type Code(s):  "TEXT"

   Person and email address for further information:  See Authors'
      Addresses section.

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author:  See Authors' Addresses section.

   Change controller:  The XML specification is a work product of the
      World Wide Web Consortium's XML Core Working Group.  The W3C has
      change control over RFC 7303.

9.6. The '+xml' Naming Convention for XML-Based Media Types

This section supersedes the earlier registration of the '+xml' suffix [RFC6839]. This specification recommends the use of the '+xml' naming convention for identifying XML-based media types, in line with the recognition in [RFC6838] of structured syntax name suffixes. 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. See Section 4.2 for guidance on when and how to register a media subtype that is '+xml' based, and Section 4.3 on registering a media subtype for XML but _not_ using '+xml'.

9.6.1. The '+xml' Structured Syntax Suffix Registration

Name: Extensible Markup Language (XML) +suffix: +xml Reference: RFC 7303 Encoding considerations: Same as Section 9.1. Fragment identifier considerations: Registrations that use this '+xml' convention MUST also make reference to this document, specifically Section 5, in specifying fragment identifier syntax
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 24
      and semantics, and they MAY restrict the syntax to a specified
      subset of schemes, except that they MUST NOT disallow barenames or
      'element' scheme pointers.  They MAY further require support for
      other registered schemes.  They also MAY add additional syntax
      (which MUST NOT overlap with [XPointerFramework] syntax) together
      with associated semantics, and they MAY add additional semantics
      for barename XPointers that, as provided for in Section 5, will
      only apply when this document does not define an interpretation.

         In practice, these constraints imply that for a fragment
         identifier addressed to an instance of a specific "xxx/yyy+xml"
         type, there are three cases:

            For fragment identifiers matching the syntax defined in
            [XPointerFramework], where the fragment identifier resolves
            per the rules specified there, then process as specified
            there;

            For fragment identifiers matching the syntax defined in
            [XPointerFramework], where the fragment identifier does
            _not_ resolve per the rules specified there, then process as
            specified in "xxx/yyy+xml";

            For fragment identifiers _not_ matching the syntax defined
            in [XPointerFramework], then process as specified in "xxx/
            yyy+xml".  A fragment identifier of the form
            "xywh=160,120,320,240", as defined in [MediaFrags], which
            might be used in a URI for an XML-encoded image, would fall
            in this category.

   Interoperability considerations:  Same as Section 9.1.  See above,
      and also Section 3, for guidelines on the use of the 'charset'
      parameter.

   Security considerations:  See Section 10.

   Contact:  See Authors' Addresses section.

   Author:  See Authors' Addresses section.

   Change controller:  The XML specification is a work product of the
      World Wide Web Consortium's XML Core Working Group.  The W3C has
      change control over RFC 7303.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 25

10. Security Considerations

XML MIME entities contain information that may be parsed and further processed by the recipient. These entities may contain, and recipients may permit, explicit system level commands to be executed while processing the data. To the extent that a recipient application executes arbitrary command strings from within XML MIME entities, they may be at risk. In general, any information stored outside of the direct control of the user -- including CSS style sheets, XSL transformations, XML- 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 XML-entity lists and DTDs for XHTML 1.0 [XHTML], for instance, are likely to be a widely exploited set of resources. They will be used and trusted by many developers, 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 XML-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 attackers, when external DTD subsets or external parameter entities or other externally specified defaulting is involved, is redefining default values for attributes: for example, 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, "XML-entity spoofing," can be used to insert text into documents, vandalizing and perhaps conveying an unintended message. Because XML permits multiple XML-entity declarations, and the first declaration takes precedence, it is possible to insert malicious content where an XML- entity reference is used, such as by inserting the full text of Winnie the Pooh in place of every occurrence of &mdash;.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 26
   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.

   With some terminal devices, sending particular character sequences to
   the display processor can change the output of subsequent key
   presses.  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 "[XML-]entity references" to construct repeated
   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.  For
   example, consider the case where XML-entity A consists of 100 copies
   of XML-entity B, which in turn consists of 100 copies of XML-entity
   C, and so on.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 27

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[IANA-CHARSETS] IANA, "Character Sets Registry", 2013, <http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/>. [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. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2781] Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646", RFC 2781, February 2000. [RFC2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005. [RFC6657] Melnikov, A. and J. Reschke, "Update to MIME regarding "charset" Parameter Handling in Textual Media Types", RFC 6657, July 2012. [RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, January 2013. [RFC6839] Hansen, T. and A. Melnikov, "Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes", RFC 6839, January 2013. [RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June 2014.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 28
   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.

   [UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              7.0.0", (Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium, 2014
              ISBN 978-1-936213-09-2),
              <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode7.0.0/>.

   [XML]      Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and
              F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
              Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xml, November 2008,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.

              Latest version available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml>.

   [XML1.1]   Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E.,
              Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language
              (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xml,
              September 2006,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/>.

              Latest version available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11>.

   [XMLBase]  Marsh, J. and R. Tobin, "XML Base (Second Edition)", W3C
              Recommendation REC-xmlbase-20090128, January 2009,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xmlbase-20090128/>.

              Latest version available at
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase>.

   [XPointerElement]
              Grosso, P., Maler, E., Marsh, J., and N. Walsh, "XPointer
              element() Scheme", W3C Recommendation REC-XPointer-
              Element, March 2003,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xptr-element-20030325/>.

              Latest version available at
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element>.

   [XPointerFramework]
              Grosso, P., Maler, E., Marsh, J., and N. Walsh, "XPointer
              Framework", W3C Recommendation REC-XPointer-Framework,
              March 2003,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xptr-framework-20030325/>.

              Latest version available at
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework>.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 29
   [XPtrReg]  Hazael-Massieux, D., "XPointer Registry", 2005,
              <http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/>.

   [XPtrRegPolicy]
              Hazael-Massieux, D., "XPointer Scheme Name Registry
              Policy", 2005,
              <http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-policy.html>.

11.2. Informative References

[ASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986. [AWWW] Jacobs, I. and N. Walsh, "Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One", W3C Recommendation REC-webarch-20041215, December 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/>. Latest version available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch>. [FYN] Mendelsohn, N., "The Self-Describing Web", W3C TAG Finding selfDescribingDocuments-2009-02-07, February 2009, <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ selfDescribingDocuments-2009-02-07.html>. Latest version available at <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ selfDescribingDocuments.html> [Infoset] Cowan, J. and R. Tobin, "XML Information Set (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xml-infoset-20040204, Febuary 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204/>. Latest version available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/>. [MediaFrags] Troncy, R., Mannens, E., Pfeiffer, S., and D. Van Deursen, "Media Fragments URI 1.0 (basic)", W3C Recommendation media-frags, September 2012, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-media-frags-20120925/>. Latest version available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags>.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 30
   [RFC1557]  Choi, U., Chon, K., and H. Park, "Korean Character
              Encoding for Internet Messages", RFC 1557, December 1993.

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

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, 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", RFC 3023, January 2001.

   [RFC3030]  Vaudreuil, G., "SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission
              of Large and Binary MIME Messages", RFC 3030, December
              2000.

   [RFC3977]  Feather, C., "Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)", RFC
              3977, October 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

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

   [RFC6152]  Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., and D. Crocker, "SMTP
              Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport", STD 71, RFC
              6152, March 2011.

   [Sivonen]  Sivonen, H. and others, "Mozilla bug: Remove support for
              UTF-32 per HTML5 spec", October 2011,
              <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604317#c6>.

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

   [XHTML]    Pemberton, S. and et al, "XHTML 1.0: The Extensible
              HyperText Markup Language", W3C Recommendation xhtml1,
              December 1999,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml1-20000126/>.

              Latest version available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1>.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 31
   [XMLModel] Grosso, P. and J. Kosek, "Associating Schemas with XML
              documents 1.0 (Third Edition)", W3C Working Group Note
              NOTE-xml-model-20121009, October 2012,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-xml-model-20121009/>.

              Latest version available at
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-model>.

   [XMLNS10]  Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H.
              Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", W3C
              Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208, December 2009,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/>.

              Latest version available at
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names>.

   [XMLNS11]  Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., and R. Tobin,
              "Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition)", W3C
              Recommendation REC-xml-names11-20060816, August 2006,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816/>.

              Latest version available at
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11>.

   [XMLSS]    Clark, J., Pieters, S., and H. Thompson, "Associating
              Style Sheets with XML documents 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C
              Recommendation REC-xml-stylesheet-20101028, October 2010,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xml-stylesheet-20101028/>.

              Latest version available at
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet>.

   [XMLid]    Marsh, J., Veillard, D., and N. Walsh, "xml:id Version
              1.0", W3C Recommendation REC-xml-id-20050909, September
              2005, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/>.

              Latest version available at
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id>.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 32

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

[RFC3023] contains a detailed discussion of the (at the time) novel use of a suffix, a practice that has since become widespread. Those interested in a historical perspective on this topic are referred to [RFC3023], Appendix A. The registration process for new '+xml' media types is described in [RFC6838].

Appendix B. Core XML Specifications

The following specifications each articulate key aspects of XML document semantics: Namespaces in XML 1.0 [XMLNS10]/Namespaces in XML 1.1 [XMLNS11] XML Information Set [Infoset] xml:id [XMLid] XML Base [XMLBase] Associating Style Sheets with XML documents [XMLSS] Associating Schemas with XML documents [XMLModel] The W3C Technical Architecture group has produced two documents that are also relevant: The Self-Describing Web [FYN] discusses the overall principles of how document semantics are determined on the Web. Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One [AWWW], Section 4.5.4, discusses the specific role of XML Namespace documents in this process.

Appendix C. Operational Considerations

This section provides an informal summary of the major operational considerations that arise when exchanging XML MIME entities over a network.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 33

C.1. General Considerations

The existence of both XML-aware and XML-unaware agents handling XML MIME entities can compromise introperability. Generic transcoding proxies pose a particular risk in this regard. Detailed advice about the handling of BOMs when transcoding can be found in Section 3.3. This specification requires XML consumers to treat BOMs as authoritative: this is in principle a backwards-incompatibility. In practice, serious interoperability issues already exist when BOMs are used. Making BOMs authoritative, in conjunction with the deprecation of the UTF-32 encoding form and the requirement to include an XML encoding declaration in certain cases (Section 3.1), is intended to improve in-practice interoperability as much as possible over time. This specification establishes Section 5 as the basis for interpreting URIs for XML MIME entities that include fragment identifiers, mandates support only for shorthand ("simple name") and 'element'-scheme fragments and deprecates support for unregistered XPointer schemes by XML MIME entity processors. Accordingly, URIs will interoperate best if they use only simple names and 'element'- scheme fragment identifiers, with registered schemes varying widely in the degree of support to be found in generic tools. XPointer scheme authors can only expect generic tool support if they register their schemes.

C.2. Considerations for Producers

Interoperability for all XML MIME entities is maximized by the use of UTF-8, without a BOM. When UTF-8 is _not_ used, a charset parameter and/or a BOM improve interoperability, particularly when XML-unaware consumers may be involved. In the very rare case where the substantive content of a non-UNICODE XML external parsed entity begins with the hexadecimal octet sequences 0xFE 0xFF, 0xFF 0xFE or 0xEF 0xBB 0xBF, including an XML text declaration will forestall the mistaken detection of a BOM. The use of UTF-32 for XML MIME entities puts interoperability at very high risk. Web-server configurations that supply default charset parameters risk misrepresenting XML MIME entities. Allowing users to control the value of charset parameters improves interoperability.
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 34
   Supplying a mistaken charset parameter is worse than supplying none
   at all.  In particular, generic processors such as transcoders, when
   processing based on a mistaken charset parameter, if they do not fail
   altogether are likely to produce arbitrarily bogus results from which
   the original is not recoverable.

C.3. Considerations for Consumers

Consumers of XML MIME entities can maximize interoperability by 1. Taking a BOM as authoritative if it is present in an XML MIME entity; 2. In the absence of a BOM, taking a charset parameter as authoritative if it is present. Assuming a default character encoding in the absence of a charset parameter harms interoperability. Although support for UTF-32 is not required by [XML] itself, and this specification deprecates its use, consumers that check for UTF-32 BOMs can thereby avoid mistakenly processing UTF-32 entities as (invalid) UTF-16 entities.

Appendix D. 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. XPointer ([XPointerFramework] and [XPointerElement]) has been added as fragment identifier syntax for all the XML media types, and the XPointer Registry ([XPtrReg]) mentioned [XMLBase] has been added as a mechanism for specifying base URIs The language regarding character sets was updated to correspond to the W3C TAG finding Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use [TAGMIME] Priority is now given to a BOM if present Many references are updated, and the existence of XML 1.1 and relevance of this specification to it acknowledged A number of justifications and contextualizations that were appropriate when XML was new have been removed, including the whole of the original Appendix A
Top   ToC   RFC7303 - Page 35

Appendix E. Acknowledgements

MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) and Alexey Melnikov made early and important contributions to the effort to revise [RFC3023]. This specification reflects the input of numerous participants to the ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, xml-mime@ietf.org, and apps-discuss@ietf.org mailing lists, though any errors are the responsibility of the authors. Special thanks to: Mark Baker, James Clark, Dan Connolly, Martin Duerst, Ned Freed, Yaron Goland, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Rick Jelliffe, Murray S. Kucherawy, Larry Masinter, David Megginson, S. Moonesamy, Keith Moore, Chris Newman, Gavin Nicol, Julian Reschke, Marshall Rose, Jim Whitehead, Erik Wilde, and participants of the XML activity and the TAG at the W3C. Jim Whitehead and Simon St. Laurent were editors of [RFC2376] and [RFC3023], respectively.

Authors' Addresses

Henry S. Thompson University of Edinburgh EMail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URI: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ 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/