Re: HTML forms

> Last time I checked, IANA, and not the IETF, controls the definitions
> of Media Types. 

yes, but IANA follows IETF rules in assignment and updating of media types.

> The entry for text/html [1] says, simply "See RFC
> 1866". And RFC 1866 [2] is a more or less verbatim copy of the HTML
> 2.0 Specification (which I couldn't find on w3.org, not that I spent
> all that long looking). If it's so important to you that this changes,
> I'd suggest you first get working at making this point to HTML 4.01 or
> even (shock horror) XHTML 1.0. You can work out extensions later on.

This is already in the process of being changed - see
draft-connolly-text-html-02.txt
for the latest version.  IIRC this is ready for IESG ballot
(though it might already be in the RFC Editor queue)

I presume that IANA will update the text/html registration once this
document is published as an RFC.

Keith

p.s. As for updating this along the lines that Mr. Salsman suggests - 
the problem as I see it is that Mr. Salsman has not been able to obtain
much community support, much less consensus, for his idea.     I am
not so sure that it's a fundamentally bad idea, but perhaps it needs
tweaking in order to gain widespread support.  Or perhaps it's just not 
high enough on anyone's priority list except Mr. Salsman's.  Regardless,
it needs a great deal more support than Mr. Salsman's to be approved, and
neither does such support seem to be forthcoming from the IETF list members.

Note that since IETF does acknowledge W3C as the "owner" of the HTML
specifications, IESG is extremely unlikely to approve a version of a 
text/html media type registration without prior W3C approval of that 
registration.

Received on Saturday, 1 April 2000 22:30:38 UTC