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

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

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:00:31 -0400
Message-Id: <200206112000.g5BK0Vn27078@astro.cs.utk.edu>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, 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.
> 
> I think this discussion is getting out of context.  The TAG finding was
> that media type registration documents must be prepared as part of the
> language definition and included in the published draft.  It does not
> state that the registration can't be submitted during the process of
> draft approval, nor does it state that the registration cannot be
> modified over time.  What it requires is that the registration forms
> receive adequate review by those responsible for the specification of
> the media format and that the registration forms receive the same
> attention to format versions/modifications as the language itself.

quite reasonable goals.   but if you put everything in the same 
document then you probably do slow down approval of that document,
unless you very carefully manage the (essentially coucurrent) review
process.
 
> The reason for this is because media type registrations have
> frequently been inaccurate, often submitted by people who have no
> responsibility for the media format, and fail to be revised over
> time when the format changes.

there are two separate problems here - one is that the registration
is not accurate in the first place (has this really been a problem
for w3c specs, though?) and the second is the failure to revise the
registration in a timely manner.

will the TAG proposal address the second problem?

Keith
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 16:00:45 GMT

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