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

Re: MIME type regostration notes

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:58:19 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031031145215.02b5f378@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, me@aaronsw.com

At 13:41 31/10/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>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?

Possibly, but not seriously I think:
[[
3.1.1 Standards Tree

    The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the
    Internet Community. Registrations in the standards tree MUST be
    approved by the IESG and MUST correspond to a formal publication by a
    recognized standards body. In the case of registrations for the IETF
    itself, the registration MUST be published as an RFC.

    Media types in the standards tree are normally denoted by names that
    are not explicitly faceted, i.e., do not contain period (".", full
    stop) characters.

    The "owner" of a media type registration in the standards tree is
    assumed to be the standards body itself.  Modification or alteration
    of the specification requires the same level of processing (e.g.,
    standards track) required for the initial registration.
]]

Might just make things easier, in that we don't have to go for RFC 
publication of Aaron's draft, though since we're this far down the line I 
don't know if we want to change that.

There's also new stuff on security requirements, but I think we pass there 
by largely by virtue of referencing general XML issues.  Aaron did note the 
added semantic dimension, but I don't think we yet know what more to say 
about that.

#g
--

>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
>
>------------
>Graham Klyne
>For email:
>http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 12:02:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 31 October 2003 12:03:00 EST