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

Re: Fwd: Three bits on MediaTypes and IANA

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:39:05 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020117093246.00ab19a0@joy.songbird.com>
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, LMM@acm.org, w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org, www-tag@w3.org
Echoing what Larry said, there are some proposals on the table, to address 
this and other IANA-registry related issues.

One advantage I see for the URN route is that it conveys some indication of 
the name being chosen and specified through a community consensus process.

#g
--

At 06:40 PM 1/16/02 -0500, Joseph Reagle wrote:

>Putting aside my confusion or disagreement with both of your reasons -- not
>uncommon to happen on this topic -- I want to focus on my immediate
>requirement: who/how do I ask such that URIs are allocated for the
>registered mediatypes (and better yet their paramter/values)?
>
>On Wednesday 16 January 2002 14:33, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > Nor any policy that they should not.
> >
> > I would strongly argue *against* defining a URL for each media-type.
> > First, because this would constrain how IANA organizes its site in
> > the future.  Second, because it would encourage the practice of
> > using URLs in place of registered names, thereby creating confusion
> > and bypassing the established mechanisms for registration of those names.
> >
> > Keith
>
>--
>
>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/

--------------------------
        __
       /\ \    Graham Klyne
      /  \ \   (GK@ACM.ORG)
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 17:50:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:04 GMT