W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Re: Fwd: Three bits on MediaTypes and IANA

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:09:31 -0500
Message-Id: <200201161809.NAA10511@tux.w3.org>
To: <LMM@acm.org>, <w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Michael Mealling" <michaelm@rwhois.net>, "Ted Hardie" <hardie@equinix.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@acm.org>
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 11:21, Larry Masinter wrote:
> There are some people who wish that IANA would keep
> www.iana.org organized in a way that URLs of the
> form "http://www.iana.org/.../media-types/..." could
> be used as abstract URIs to identify MIME media types.

Yes, and the reason I raise this is because 

(1) they state RFC1700 is out of date, the most normative registry that I 
can find right now is:
which explicitly references
(2) they are *already* doing it, to be really useful to me they just need a 
few tweaks.

> However, there is no policy that IANA should do so;

Nor any policy that they should not. 

> I, Graham Klyne, Ted Hardie and Michael Mealling did a
> complete review of the IANA directory to see what
> might be used to create URIs for IANA-registered protocol
> elements, the results of which are at:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-iana-urn-02.txt

Does this apply to all registries at:

In which case, what would the URN for the text/xml media type look like?

> After considerable reflection and discussion with IANA,
> it seemed inappropriate to try to change IANA's work practice
> for organizing its published information merely to create URLs
> that would be useful for other purposes.

What were some of the issues? I might be willing to help out. (In what way 
would creating a registry akin to those already created for applications be 
a substantive change of work practice? For cooler stuff, do they keep the 
registry information in *any* structured data format?)

>For the particular purpose of identifying a complete
>media type designation including parameters and
>parameter values, Eastlake's 'content-type' scheme in
>seems just right.

Do you (or anyone) then know the status of this with respect to that scheme 
being registered and the spec moving belong ietf-draft?


Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 13:09:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:30 UTC