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 13:22:41 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9BB281.5000802@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:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:02:08 +0200, Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854 only has references to older HTML 
> versions in the non-normative introductory section.
> 
> Is that sufficient to able to answer my questions?

No. Anything in an RFC is normative unless it's explicitly stated otherwise.


>>> 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.
> 
> That is not an answer to my question. But since you put it this way, why 
> would the media type registration document have to reference the 
> previous specifications?

Because the point of a media type registration is to point recipients to 
a description of the format, sufficient to understand the document.

>>> 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.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> 
>> I don't understand the other part. Could you elaborate?
> 
> There are multiple versions of XML 1.0, only a single one is referenced. 
> What does that imply?

It implies that when RFC 3023 gets revised, the reference will need to 
be updated. Note, btw, that it uses the un-dated URI as reference.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:23:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC