W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2011

ACTION-595 Create a final report on Mime and the Web due in one month

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 17:27:35 -0700
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05D4AC095D@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Finding on Registries and Registry processes (Media Types, URI schemes, etc.)

a)  We still prefer using URIs as extensibility names, because of their broad light-weight availability.

b)  When extensibility names can't be URIs for valid reasons (length, need for review, etc.), then there should be an explicit registry

c)  The W3C should continue to work with IETF and IANA to coordinate the management of registries, and also address W3C registries and those managed by 3rd parties, so that anyone trying to follow W3C Recommendations understands the process components

d)  If there is a registry, it is only useful if values are registered. A registry which does not match actual use (as with URI schemes, Media Types) is harmful, and W3C should apply resources to facilitate fixing this situation.


*          http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime is obsolete, but we don't have an update

*         http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype is broken, and W3C should be held accountable to make it work.

So that focuses of a big chunk of the issues in  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-mime-web-info

The other big chunk was around MIME sniffing, but I'm working on mimesniff in IETF, and don't see the TAG needs to take lead, although updating "authoritative metadata" with a reference might be useful.

Received on Sunday, 16 October 2011 00:28:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:12 UTC