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

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

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:51:53 +0100
Message-ID: <1918781657.20031205165153@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

On Friday, December 5, 2003, 12:05:52 PM, Graham wrote:

GK> 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
>>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.

GK> I wasn't aware of that document, but it looks plausible.

I am aware of it, uncomfortable with it, and wish the new process
would move from ID to RFC so we could start using it.

GK> From recollection, the requirement of IETF tree registration, per
GK> RFC2048, is publication in an IESG-approved RFC (doesn't have to
GK> be standards-track).

This is changing, though. The IETF tree is being rebranded the
Standards Tree, for example.

GK>  My approach would have been to request IESG approval for
GK> publication, rather than simply copying them on a request to 
GK> rfc-editor.  In practice, the latter (per Reagle's note) is probably more
GK> efficient.

GK> The other point I would question is waiting until the W3C spec becomes a
GK> REC before requesting registration.

This is a known broken catch-22 and the new process fixes it.

GK>   That adds further delay, and in the
GK> meantime the registration template exists in an Internet-draft form that
GK> folks can't be expected to find or take seriously.  I think that as soon as
GK> there is a stable and credible specification to point at then it's
GK> appropriate to request registration.

Before CR, for example. Otherwise, it can't be implemented and tested.

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

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

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

Yes, we have to until its published. I hope it gets published soon.

GK> #g
GK> --

GK> ------------
GK> Graham Klyne
GK> For email:
GK> http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 10:51:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:40 UTC