- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:51:21 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- cc: reagle@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
> I see no reason why a brief registration document should not defer to a W3C > spec for the primary definition of a W3C-defined standard content-type. nor do I. furthermore, processing the registration document in parallel with the spec, rather than sequentially, will probably speed things up considerably - which also argues for separating the registration document from the specification. > but my understanding is that such a document could make normative reference > to a W3C specification for its normative content. RFC 2026 says: > [[ > 7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard > > An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external > standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards > incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2]. > Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available > online. > ]] > > and I have received indication in another context that W3C recommendations > qualify as "open standards" for the purposes of RFC 2026. Indeed, this has been the understanding for a long time. Keith
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 14:51:35 UTC