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

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

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:16:09 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020612101148.0419c318@localhost>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, reagle@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org

At 12:52 02/06/11 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>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.

On several W3C specs that I have reviewed, it just said
"media type foo/bar is being registered", without any
reference. I think this is not appropriate. But I think
it would be perfectly appropriate if it said
"media type foo/bar is being registered, see [ref]"
where [ref] is a reference to the internet draft of the
registration.


>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.

Putting the actual registration text into the W3C spec doesn't
really help. On the contrary, people may get the impression
that the text in the spec is the real thing, and they don't
have to care about the internet draft.


Regards,   Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 21:16:59 GMT

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