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

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].