W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype-01.txt

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:14:27 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020823140114.03c55e60@127.0.0.1>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, reagle@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

[mailing list cc's trimmed]

At 10:54 PM 8/19/02 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:

>On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 09:19  PM, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>There seemed to be general agreement that a moving target is not a good idea.
>
>I was working on advice from Graham Klyne:
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0001.html
>
>If the IETF community is in agreement it should go, then I'll remove it.

Yes, I can see that moving targets aren't always helpful.

Question:  if the MIME application/xml type specification is updated, and 
the IANA MIME registry is updated accordingly, which specification is 
expected to apply?

Another approach is to not cite the document, but to cite the IANA registry 
(hence cite the document by indirection)?  (Which is another way of citing 
a moving target.)

I don't know what's best practice here, but having reviewed the specific 
text again I think that in this case, on balance, it's cleaner to drop the 
"or the most recent specification ..." words.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 09:58:01 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:28 EDT