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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:44:21 -0800
Message-Id: <C4CF2428-27D0-11D8-ADAE-00039396E15A@mnot.net>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>

It looks like the document is a mix between the old and new processes; 
it caused some of the confusion around the registration of 
application/soap+xml.

IMHO it should be updated to fully match the new process and then have 
a strengthened disclaimer attached to it until the new process comes 
into effect.

Does anyone have an idea/inkling of when the new process will go RFC?


On Dec 5, 2003, at 9:57 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 09:51, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I added a status label to reflect the uncertainty around it.
>
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2003 04:47:06 GMT

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