W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-01: action items, decision policy update, issue status

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:41:48 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <0BDBE476-72F2-470B-8CBD-89841A0EED8A@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 30.03.2010 23:05, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> ...
>> Time permitting, can you add an agenda item to discuss cross-working
>> group MIME type coordination?
>> Since I have been named as co-chair, I've been consistently against
>> "active development of two incompatible vocabularies being served  
>> with
>> the same media type and being defined in the same XML namespace"[1]
>> Yet, more recently, we've been informed[2], in a way that makes it  
>> sound
>> like a fait accompli, that changes are being made to the remaining  
>> specs to do exactly that.
>> ...
> +1
> We talked about this shortly on the telco. Below a somewhat extended  
> version of what I had to say:
> From a standards point of view, new documents (be it NOTEs or RECs)  
> about text/html are *irrelevant*, until the media type registration  
> is updated as well.

Even if these documents do not actually affect the registration, I  
think they are still a problem. It seems like a bad idea to have  
documents, whether WG Notes or RECs, that claim things about text/html  
which are in not accordance with the MIME registration, and which are  
not going to be submitted to IANA. That seems likely to create  

Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 20:42:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC