W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Another Draft of TAG position on use of unregistered media types in W3C Recommendations

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 13:25:10 -0700
Message-ID: <17618.23462.71473.973937@retriever.corp.google.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: raman@google.com, connolly@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org



*I agree with you on both your primary points, A) that we owe a
 reply quickly --- and B) that the disagreement is minor.

However, as I've stated a few times during the call, I've
experienced this kind of situation from "the other side " as it
were, namely from inside WGs trying to get  out a working,
implementable specification, and in that context, I believe that
as a ground-rule we as the TAG should only say "dont do X" if we
have a reasonable "Do Y instead" proposal.



noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com writes:
 > Well, unfortunately, your nonconcurrence made it in just under in time, as 
 > I was about to mail this response to the AB.  Seriously, both formulations 
 > of this are well within the range of what I personally can happily 
 > endorse, but it sounds like Dan can't live with mine, and Raman can't live 
 > with his.  As I say, either is fine with me. 
 > 
 > It's really time to get something out.  I think we're basically agreed 
 > that at the very least, workgroups should try hard to get their types 
 > registered.  I think we're agreed that, at least in principle, there might 
 > be justifiable exceptions, though I take it that Dan suspects that 
 > examples are vanishingly rare and is unconvinced that he's seen an 
 > existence proof.  Dan seems most comfortable phrasing thre rule as simply 
 > "register it", acknowledging that most W3C processes can be bent given 
 > suitable justification, and leaving it to the AB to propose a bending 
 > process in this case.  Raman seems to be saying:  not good enough.  We 
 > need to acknowledge somewhat more that there may be good reasons for not 
 > registering.
 > 
 > I think I need to step out of the way on this, and encourage you two and 
 > anyone else on the TAG who's concerned to come up with some text that you 
 > both can endorse.  I'll be glad to send it under my name on behalf of the 
 > TAG once it's settled, or else we can agree that one of you will.  I do 
 > think we're overdue in getting something out, and ultimately it seems to 
 > me that the disagreement here is sort of small.  Can we resolve this 
 > quickly?  Thanks!
 > 
 > Noah
 > 
 > --------------------------------------
 > Noah Mendelsohn 
 > IBM Corporation
 > One Rogers Street
 > Cambridge, MA 02142
 > 1-617-693-4036
 > --------------------------------------
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
 > Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
 > 08/03/2006 01:24 PM
 >  
 >         To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
 >         cc:     connolly@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
 >         Subject:        Re: Another Draft of TAG position on use of 
 > unregistered media      types in  W3C  Recommendations
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > I find it somewhat disturbing that we appear to  be taking a
 > position with respect to telling groups what to do namely,
 > "Attempt to get all types you used registered with IANA"
 > -- but then step back  when it comes to saying what a group
 > should do if the above fails. I believe it is fair for us to say
 > "You cannot create new types unless you register them
 > appropriately" --- 
 > but I'm not comfortable with our   guidance to WGs on
 > pre-existing unregistered types.
 > 
 > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com writes:
 >  > 
 >  > Dan Conolly wrote:
 >  > 
 >  > > That much is fine. I don't like the last bit, but I wasn't 
 >  > > going to object until you prompted me again ;-)
 >  > 
 >  > Oh, I wouldn't have wanted to miss a chance to go another round.  Lucky 
 > 
 >  > thing I checked :-).  Let's see if we can wrap this up.  First, let me 
 >  > just merge the changes I think you've asked for, so you can at least 
 >  > verify that I understood your proposal.  Is this what you intended?
 >  > 
 >  > ==================YET ANOTHER DRAFT =================================
 >  > Members of the W3C Advisory Board have recently approached the 
 > Technical 
 >  > Architecture Group (TAG) to ask for clarification of the guidelines 
 >  > regarding references to unregistered media types from W3C 
 > Recommendations. 
 >  >   The TAG briefly considered this question during their teleconference 
 > of 
 >  > 18 July 2006 [1,2], and again on 25 July [minutes not yet available]. 
 > This 
 >  > note is being circulated to publicize our conclusions. 
 >  > 
 >  > Media types and other formats referenced from W3C Recommendations 
 > should 
 >  > be properly registered with the appropriate authority.  Nonetheless, 
 > the 
 >  > TAG recognizes that certain such formats come into widespread use 
 > without 
 >  > registration, and that there may thus in exceptional circumstances be 
 >  > reasons for considering reference to unregistered types in W3C 
 >  > Recommendations.  To emphasize that the importance attached to 
 >  > registration, the TAG suggests the following guidelines for W3C 
 >  > Recommendations:
 >  > 
 >  > * Workgroups preparing Recommendations should avoid dependencies on 
 > media 
 >  > types or other data formats that are not properly registered with the 
 >  > appropriate registration authority.  In the case of MIME media types, 
 > that 
 >  > authority is IANA.
 >  > 
 >  > * Accordingly, workgroups should arrange for registration of new media 
 >  > types that they may create, and should make reasonable efforts to 
 > promote 
 >  > the proper registration of other formats on which their Recommendations 
 > 
 >  > depend.
 >  > 
 >  > W3C process is a balance of consensus, architecture, and timeliness; if 
 > a 
 >  > working group requests to proceed with references to unregistered media 
 > 
 >  > types, it's a process question to say whether the extenuating 
 >  > circumstances are sufficient.   As the TAG is not chartered to address 
 >  > process questions, we leave it to the Advisory Board to establish any 
 >  > policies or just leave it to the discretion of The Director.
 >  > 
 >  > Noah Mendelsohn
 >  > For the W3C Technical Architecture Group
 >  > 
 >  > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/07/18-agenda.html
 >  > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/07/18-tagmem-minutes.html#item05
 >  > 
 >  > ===================================================
 >  > 
 >  > For the record, I can easily live with that.  Just to follow up a bit, 
 > you 
 >  > wrote:
 >  > 
 >  > > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:06 -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
 >  > > [...]
 >  > > > The TAG does recognize that there are a few unregistered media 
 > types 
 >  > > > already in widespread use, and we agree that there may be 
 > exceptional 
 >  > > > cases when Recommendations would benefit from reference to such 
 > types.
 >  > > 
 >  > > Well, that suggests that we think there are, currently, cases
 >  > > when Recommendations would benefit from reference
 >  > > to unregistered media types. I don't think there are.
 >  > 
 >  > > >   We 
 >  > > > believe that the W3C process should recognize that there is 
 >  > > great value to 
 >  > > > encouraging W3C groups to promote the registration of such types, 
 > but 
 >  > > > should also recognize that asking a workgroup to do this as a
 >  > > precondition 
 >  > > > for referencing a type could in some cases be burdensome.
 >  > > 
 >  > > That suggests that in this burden is undue. I haven't seen a case 
 > where
 >  > > it is.
 >  > 
 >  > Well, actually, I think some TAG members such as Raman strongly 
 > indicated 
 >  > that they felt the burden could be significant, and wanted that point 
 > of 
 >  > view represented a bit.  That's why I wrote the draft as I did.  My own 
 > 
 >  > position happens to be about half way between (enough burden to matter, 
 > 
 >  > though rarely), but more to the point, if Raman and other TAG members 
 > can 
 >  > live with your proposed text (which is sort of neutral on the burden), 
 >  > that seems like a good compromise to me.
 >  > 
 >  > So, at the risk of the AB being weeks past needing an answer by the 
 > time 
 >  > we get this done, I'm going to restart the clock on having a draft out 
 > for 
 >  > a couple of days, using the text above as the point of review.  If we 
 > get 
 >  > either silence or explicit assent from other TAG members by, say, 
 > Thurs. 
 >  > noon East Coast time, I'll send it out.  I really think it's time to 
 > wrap 
 >  > this up.
 >  > 
 >  > Dan, thanks for your help with this.
 >  > 
 >  > Noah
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > --------------------------------------
 >  > Noah Mendelsohn 
 >  > IBM Corporation
 >  > One Rogers Street
 >  > Cambridge, MA 02142
 >  > 1-617-693-4036
 >  > --------------------------------------
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > 
 > 
 > -- 
 > Best Regards,
 > --raman
 > 
 > Title:  Research Scientist 
 > Email:  raman@google.com
 > WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
 > GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
 > PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
 > Google: tv+raman 
 > 
 > 
 > 

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Google: tv+raman 
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 20:25:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:41 GMT