W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:02:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9BADB0.3090504@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> ...
> I continue to wonder what I'm missing here. Is this a requirement of 
> media type registrations? If so, do you have a pointer?
> 
> Furthermore, if this is a requirement, why are references from a 
> non-normative section sufficient?
> ...

Please elaborate: which non-normative section?

> Apart from this whether this is or is not a requirement, what is useful 
> about this being defined in HTML5 if it has absolutely no effect on 
> anyone whatsoever?

It isn't. It was Ian's choice to do it this way. My proposal is and was 
to leave the registration in a separate document, which can continue to 
also reference previous specs.

> How does this work for other media type registrations? E.g. RFC 3023 
> only references the Second Edition of XML 1.0. Does that mean it cannot 
> be used when namespaces are used in XML? Can it not be used for the 
> Fifth Edition? The First? How does this work?

A namespace-wellformed XML document is also a wellformed XML document. 
So unless RFC 3023 needs to say something specific about XML namespaces, 
it seems to be ok not to reference it.

I don't understand the other part. Could you elaborate?

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:02:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:44 GMT