W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > October 2010

Re: registration templates, Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft

From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:24:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4CAB350B.8060608@att.com>
To: IRI WG mailing list <public-iri@w3.org>
The current rules say that

1) a template *exists*,
2) the template is what is used for review on uri-review@ietf.org
3) the template is what is sent to IANA at iana@iana.org

The *easiest* way to accomplish this is to include the template in the 
defining RFC, but it is not mandatory for it to be *listed* there.

But it does need to exist. Personally, I find that having the 
information collected into one place within the document is useful.

     Tony Hansen
     tony@att.com

On 10/5/2010 8:40 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 05.10.2010 06:17, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> ...
>> My draft does not include the registration template. That has a lead to
>> some complaints, but my reading of RFC 4395 is that it is not required,
>> and http://www.w3.org/mid/455CCAAD.2040407@att.com Tony Hansen confirmed
>> that. The template is not currently used outside the specification when
>> it is part of an RFC, and in my case it would just be a TOC for the do-
>> cument; I think it should be clarified that it is not needed in this
>> case.
>> ...
>
> Disagreeing :-)
>
> A registration template is very useful, because:
>
> - it forces the author to think about all the required fields, and
>
> - it makes it easy for reviewers to actually find the relevant 
> sections in the spec.
>
> Thus I'd like the template to become mandatory.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 14:24:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:00 GMT