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

Dissent: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:53:16 -0400
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020611165317.E9258262@policy.w3.org>

On Tuesday 11 June 2002 11:58 am, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> 1) Published the following completed findings:
>
>   - "Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use":
>     http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
>W3C Working Groups engaged in defining a language SHOULD 
>arrange for the registration of an Internet Media Type (defined in 
>RFC 2046 [RFC2046]) for that language. If so, the IETF registration 
>forms MUST be part of the language specification, and SHOULD be 
>part of the specification starting at Candidate Recommendation status.

As I've noted earlier this could introduce a source of delay and confusion 
in the advancement of W3C specifications. Unless the TAG has determined 
that the IESG/IANA finds a section of a W3C specification to be an adequate 
registration request this means we'll have one version in a W3C 
specification, and one version published as an ietf-draft and subsequent 
Informational RFC contingent about IESG timing and discretion. (I noted it 
took ~6 months to publish the xmldsig requirements Informational RFC). The 
W3C will not be able to publish the CR until the IETF publishes the 
Informational RFC I presume? Which is unfortunate as implementation and 
operational experience might inform the media type registration, requiring 
a new Informational RFC.


Consequently, I disagree with this finding and prefer that the media type 
registration proceed as specified in RFC2048; a W3C specification SHOULD 
reference the IETF document. 
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 12:53:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:08 GMT