W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

Re: pls mark w3cMediaType-1 pending negotiations with IETF or something

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:05:52 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031205105241.00b99370@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Cc: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

At 17:30 04/12/03 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>While it's good that we are agreed, and the
>webarch doc is pretty well done with this,
>there's still work to do on issue
>
>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#w3cMediaType-1
>
>People still seem to be using
>   http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
>as guidance, and I haven't figured out whether I believe
>that thing or not.

I wasn't aware of that document, but it looks plausible.  From 
recollection, the requirement of IETF tree registration, per RFC2048, is 
publication in an IESG-approved RFC (doesn't have to be 
standards-track).  My approach would have been to request IESG approval for 
publication, rather than simply copying them on a request to 
rfc-editor.  In practice, the latter (per Reagle's note) is probably more 
efficient.

The other point I would question is waiting until the W3C spec becomes a 
REC before requesting registration.  That adds further delay, and in the 
meantime the registration template exists in an Internet-draft form that 
folks can't be expected to find or take seriously.  I think that as soon as 
there is a stable and credible specification to point at then it's 
appropriate to request registration.

>The RDF Core WG is still kinda confused;
>at least: I am.

I'm not sure if we're confused, or just unfocused on this issue.  So far, 
as I see it, we've been treating the application/rdf+xml as a document to 
be progressed on a track roughly in step with the W3C documents.  The 
document  has been prepared, and updated in response to comments, by Aaron 
and IMO is ready to request publication when we are ready to request it.

>Ian, the issues list cites the 3 Jun 2002 minutes in
>the acknowledgement cycle. I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.
>We need to get back to the folks that asked us about this
>issue and ask them if we've actually given sufficient guidance.
>
>Plus, there are ongoing negotiations with the IETF about
>registering media types developed in W3C.
>
>I happened to chat about this with Reagle the other day;
>some breadcrumbs...
>
>draft-freed-mime-p4-04
>posted by DanC at 2003-11-26 19:14 (+)
>
>         DanC: Internet Draft by Freed, Klensin October 20, 2003
>         DanC:  IETF tracker status says "In State: Waiting for Writeup"
>         DanC: see also TAG issue w3cMediaType-1
>         DanC: and How to Register a Media Type with IANA (for the IETF
>         tree)
>http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/11/26/2003-11-26.html#1069874064.819537

I was aware of the existence of this new draft, but until it is actually 
approved I would stick with what is already published.

#g
--


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 08:25:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT