W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2008

Re: link relationship registration [was: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:10:02 -0600
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Atom Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1228162202.6953.243.camel@pav.lan>

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:11 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
[...]
> I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding registration  
> requirements, as I think that's the biggest remaining sticking point.  
> Note that it was previously "IESG Approval"; I've changed it to "IETF  
> Review" (nee "IETF Consensus") so that a document is required. Also, I  
> believe this still accommodates other standards orgs (like the W3C)  
> using their processes to publish documents that register entries, just  
> as with media types.

That would surprise me; while there is a significant overlap in the
communities, the IETF does not, in general, accept consensus
in the W3C community in place of consensus in its own community.

The media type registration spec phrases it this way:


3.1.  Standards Tree

   The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the
   Internet community.  Registrations in the standards tree MUST be
   approved by the IESG and MUST correspond to a formal publication by a
   recognized standards body.  In the case of registration for the IETF
   itself ...


  -- http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=4288#page-4


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 20:10:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:59 UTC