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

Re: Dissent: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:52:29 -0400
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020611185230.8AE6E297@policy.w3.org>

On Tuesday 11 June 2002 02:35 pm, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but you still need the registration document, to be published as a 
ietf-draft, and then Informational RFC. I agree that references can be made 
from the IETF document to a W3C document, which I do [1], but I still have 
to carry the requirements in the IETF context. A reference from a REC to 
the Informational RFC for the official media type registration is 
appropriate; a reference to an Informational RFC media type registry to a 
W3C REC is appropriate. I don't understand why/how to replicate the 
registration in two document and the mandatory CR dependency. I'd prefer to 
write an ietf-draft for the media type registration, go to CR, and then go 
to InfoRFC as I leave CR.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Jun/att-0011/01-draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype-00.txt
   Security considerations:
      Security considerations include many of those described in
      the Security Considerations of [XENC]. 
   Interoperability considerations: none
   Published specification: [XENC].
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 14:52:31 GMT

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