W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Request for two new media types submitted

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:06:16 +0000
Message-ID: <49350898.5080007@philarcher.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Thanks Ivan, I'll cc this to the public list so it's recorded.

No, no mistake, we mean text/powder+xml. In answer to the registration 
form's question on Interoperability considerations I wrote:

"The text top level media type is used in accordance with RFC2046, 
section 3(1) which says that "... software must not be required in order 
to get the general idea of the content." We contend that the structure 
of a POWDER document, whilst not designed first and foremost to be 
human-readable, is simple enough for this requirement to be met. 
Therefore interoperability with systems that only render text is supported."

RFC3023 states "If an XML document -- that is, the unprocessed, source 
XML document -- is readable by casual users, text/xml is preferable to 
application/xml"

OK so even a simple POWDER document has a load of angle brackets and 
won't mean much to everyone, but we have always maintained the idea that 
the source code should be simple enough that, with just a little 
familiarisation, a non-specialist should be able to edit them. We 
believe we've achieved that with POWDER, but of course, POWDER-S is very 
hard to understand and edit by hand so that's why we've gone for 
application/powder-s+xml.

Do you agree?

Phil

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Phil,
> 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/4933E1E8.2050800@philarcher.org seems to register
> text/powder+xml. Isn't that a mistake? Shouldn't it be
> application/powder+xml? That is the standard thingy for xml
> applications... The one for powder-s seems to be all right, so I presume
> that was a mistake...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Phil Archer wrote:
>> To whom it may concern,
>>
>> On behalf of the W3C POWDER Working Group I have have today submitted
>> two registration requests for Media Types. As cited in those requests,
>> the key documentation is section 4 of Protocol for Web Description
>> Resources (POWDER): Description Resources [1]. Although this is formally
>> published as a working draft, we are close to reaching our Candidate
>> Recommendation exit criteria and therefore expect to seek transition to
>> Proposed Recommendation later this month.
>>
>> The reference numbers returned following the submissions were 208572 and
>> 208576. These requests complement the separate request to register
>> 'describedby' as an ATOM relationship type (currently under consideration).
>>
>> If I have missed any important detail or of you have any queries, please
>> contact me, preferably copying in the POWDER WG's public mailing list.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> POWDER WG Chair.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc
>>
> 

-- 

Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 10:10:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:13 GMT