W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Pursuing question of mime types in W3C specifications and nextactions

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:54:52 -0400
To: "John Stracke" <JStracke@incentivesystems.com>, "Lloyd Wood" <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Cc: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, <ietf@ietf.org>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200206281654.53337.reagle@w3.org>

On Friday 28 June 2002 03:29 pm, John Stracke wrote:
> It is perfectly possible to have a MIME registration RFC that references
> a non-IETF document for the actual syntax of the format.  For example,
> see RFC-3240.

Note, that under my present understanding (making the best of present 
process) the W3C will be putting the *whole* [1] of the registration 
document into the W3C spec. I was originally pursuing the strategy [2] akin 
to 3240 but some think the spec itself should contain the registry 
information, so I will move the non-boilerplate content of [2] into the W3C 
document, and the next version of the internet-draft will be nothing more 
than a one line statement saying "see appendix foo in W3C spec." Even so, 
you get into hairy situations with which spec becomes stable first, and 
which way the references flow under this scenario (which I try to address 
with [1]) though an improved process is desired by some.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype-00.txt
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 16:55:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:29 UTC