W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: please review: application/smil MIME type registration

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:13:30 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20010903162349.032dee70@localhost>
To: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Cc: ietf-types@iana.org, www-smil@w3.org
Hello Philipp,

At 10:12 01/08/31 +0200, Philipp Hoschka wrote:

>Martin Duerst a 馗rit :

> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoschka-smil-media-type-09.txt.
> >
> > And it's registering both application/smil and application/xml+smil.
>
>Right - the message you are responding to dates from June 21, and
>announced
>a two-week review starting at that date.

I have no idea what happened. But I received only one or two
messages on ietf-types since June, is that all there was?
This was the reason I thought your message was very recent.


>This review resulted in a
>couple of
>comments, which lead to changes in the draft, and a new version.

Ah, I see.



>I am planning to start another 2-week review soon, together with a
>request
>for an IESG-authorized IETF-wide last call.
>
> > Some simple comments:
> >
> > - Was there an earlier registration for application/smil? I haven't
> >    found anything about that in the draft.
>
>There was no earlier registration.
>
> > - There are two types registered, but there is no explanation about
> >    why there are two, or which should be used in what case
> >    (or I have missed that).
>
>The reason that there are two types is that application/smil is widely
>used, but application/xml+smil is in line with an existing RFC. I'm not
>sure we need to set up rules on when to use which, and I'm not sure what
>the rules would be.

Maybe we don't need rules. But it would be very good if the
draft explained why there are two types, and that the users
are free to chose.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 03:13:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:27 GMT