W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2003

Re: MIME type regostration notes

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:41:17 +0000
Message-ID: <3FA2667D.1050101@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, me@aaronsw.com

Thanks Graham.  There appears to be a new process for registering 
mime-types that has just closed IETF last call.

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt

Does this affect us?

Brian


Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> At 16:25 30/10/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
>> ACTION 2002-04-05#2 Aaron
>>   complete rdf mime type registration
> 
> 
> Here's the current situation as I see it.
> 
> The current published draft is [1], dated 11-Sep-2003.
> 
> This was released following Aaron's request for review [2], and personal 
> feedback from me following informal WG discussion [3].
> 
> As far as I can tell, the latest draft was not announced on the 
> ietf-types mailing list [4], so (unsurprisingly there has been no comment).
> 
> I have re-reviewed the latest version (just now), and note the following 
> minor points:
> 
> (a)  I think this is OK, but I note that a charset parameter is noted, 
> with use per application/xml.  I mention this because there has been 
> some recent discussion [5] about the undesirability of charset 
> parameters on XML MIME types.  I think that deferring to application/xml 
> is the right thing to do, but if this is likely to be an issue, we might 
> add a note to the effect that use of the charset parameter is discouraged.
> 
> For now, I suggest:  do nothing.
> 
> (b)  Small matter.  There the registration says:
> 
> [[
>       Encoding considerations:
> 
>          Same as charset parameter of application/xml.
> ]]
> 
> maybe it would be more appropriate to say just:
> [[
>       Encoding considerations:
> 
>          Same as application/xml.
> ]]
> 
> (c) I note that the document title for citation [3] is incorrect -- it 
> should be "RDF Semantics".  This may be an out-of-date xml2rfc BibXML 
> module ... I note that the current version of BibXML from 
> xml.resource.org has the correct name for the latest draft release.  
> (BTW, these citation files for W3C documents are automagically generated 
> from W3C's own RDF published details.)
> 
> (d) RFC2119 is mentioned in the reference list, but never actually cited 
> in the document.
> 
> These are all nits which can probably be sorted out in the publication 
> process.
> 
> Item (c) raises a question of timing.  Should we hold off requesting 
> publication until the final RDF drafts are published?  I think not:  RFC 
> publication is a lengthy process, and updating the references to the 
> final versions should be easy enough, and should be clearly seen as 
> merely editorial changes.  It might be worth adding a "Note to RFC 
> editor" to check for the final published document details.  (This is 
> common practice when publishing sets of RFCs.)
> 
> So where from here?  I suggest:
> (1) remind folks on the ietf-types list [4] that a revised document is 
> here for review.
> (2) assuming no adverse feedback, request IESG approval for RFC 
> publication.
> 
> #g
> -- 
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-03.txt 
> 
>     Also, HTML at
>     
> http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-03.html
> 
> 
> [2] http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2003-July/000073.html
> 
> [3] http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2003-July/000075.html
> 
> [4] http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/
> 
> [5] 
> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2003-October/000092.html
>     et seq
> 
> 
> 
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> For email:
> http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 08:42:25 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 31 October 2003 08:42:31 EST