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

plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:56:09 -0500
To: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Cc: public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1271782569.4466.7439.camel@pav.lan>
In
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology

I see:

"This essentially means that only media type definitions (as registered
through the process defined in RFC 4288) are able to introduce a
standard structure on URI fragments for that mime type."

so far so good; then...

"The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
registration."

Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented? It doesn't
seem responsible for W3C to Recommend the media fragments spec
without some plan in place to get the IETF/IANA registrations
updated.

I suggest
 (a) getting one or more IETF area directors to agree
  to get the registrations updated
 (b) making CR exit contingent on one or two of
  the registrations getting updated

The WG schedule currently has a fairly short CR period
  http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/

That makes a certain amount of sense given that I see
fairly detailed discussion of test cases already.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/thread.html#msg7

So if plans are not already underway to get the
registrations updated, I suggest getting started soon.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 16:56:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:38 GMT