W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Request for comments for Media Type registration ofapplication/ccxml+xml

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:54:33 -0400
Message-Id: <p06110400bd2d389cc364@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>, <ietf-types@iana.org>, <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>, <www-voice@w3.org>

At 3:03 PM +0900 7/28/04, Martin Duerst wrote:
>At 13:05 04/07/27 -0700, RJ Auburn wrote:
>
>>On 07/21/2004 22:03, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  These comments are as much about the general "IETF MIME type
>>>  registration from W3C recommendation" as they are about this
>>>  particular registration:
>>
>>
>>Martin: Would you be the person to handle/address the general issues?
>
>Yes. For everybody's information, RJ is following the procedure laid
>out at http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#Planned.
>Because he is the first to do so, this is a very good case to see
>where we have to tweak that description. I have already made two
>additions:
>1) Added a sentence "Make sure that this part of the specification
>    is readable on its own, without the context of the specification."
>    [for further details, a good example is probably better than a
>     lot of explanations]
>2) Added a sentence "To make it easier for your WG to track comments
>    on the Media Type section, you may cross-post the comments list
>    for your specification."
>    [I want to leave this to the group for the moment. They have to
>     show that they addressed comments to the IESG, so having that
>     documented in a last call table may have advantages and
>     disadvantages.]
>
>Also, I'm planning to add some pointers to examples to the above
>description, once we have them. That should make it easier for
>others to do this.
>
>>  > Your translation from HTML to ASCII left out line breaks
>>>  before heading lines, which made your template hard
>>>  to read.
>>
>>If needed I can resubmit a nicer looking version. Let me know...
>
>I guess that can wait for the next time you send something anyway,
>but I hope this will be soon.
>
>>  >> Published specification:
>>>>
>>>>  This media type registration is for CCXML documents as
>>>>  described by this specification.
>>>
>>>  I'm not 100% sure if this is necessary, but I'd expect
>>>  if the template were to appear elsewhere to see
>>>  a bibliographic citation, e.g.,
>>>
>>>  "Voice Browser Call Control: CCXML Version 1.0", W3C
>>>  Working Draft, 30 April 2004, W3C, <http://www.w3.org/TR/ccxml/>
>>>
>>>  Is "this specification" (or the whole specification) precise
>>>  enough?  In some other cases, a single W3C recommendation defines
>>>  many different data types. Perhaps it would be useful to
>>>  say, somewhere, e.g., that the MIME type refers to XML bodies that
>>>  conform to the DTD/Schema referenced in Appendix B and C and
>>>  interpreted by the rules in the cited specification.
>>
>>
>>Pointing at the schema/dtd sections seems reasonable.  How is this for text:
>>
>>Published specification:
>>     This media type registration is for XML bodies that
>>     conform to the DTD/Schema referenced in Appendix B and C and
>>     interpreted by the rules this specification
>
>'this specification' -> 'of this specification'
>
>>  >> Person & email address to contact for further information:
>>>>
>>>>  RJ Auburn, <rj@voxeo.com>.
>>>
>>>  Should there be a W3C contact as well?
>>
>>
>>Dave/Max/Martin: Thoughts?
>
>Adding the name of a staff contact or so might be a good idea.
>
>>  >> Intended usage:
>>>>
>>>>  COMMON
>>>>  Author/Change controller:
>>>>
>>>>  The CCXML specification is a work product of the World Wide Web
>>>  Consortium's
>>>>  Voice Browser Working Group. The W3C has change control over these
>>>>  specifications.
>>>
>>>  Or perhaps the W3C contact address should be listed here.
>>
>>Dave/Max/Martin: Thoughts?
>
>The W3C is 'on the Web', not at a particular physical location.
>This kind of wording has been used in some previous registrations,
>and should be okay.

Actually, Martin, the W3C should come up with something better.  This is
a detail of the "life after Rec[ommendation status is achieved]" that I am
not aware we have laid out adequately.

There is a slight problem because the W3C has studiously avoided being
a legal entity which could be identified in standard X.500 terms.

But if we take the specification

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2004JulSep/0075.html

The document identifies a contact address of

mailto:www-dom@w3.org

This is standard practice, viz:

<quote cite=
"http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Contact">
Do you have a technical comment?
W3C technical reports include email addresses where     readers 
should send technical comments.
</quote>

The Consortium has also assiduously avoided promising to answer 
questions about its
utterances, other than that one may post 'comments' in the above 
manner.  Clearly a 'comment'
alleging that there is an inconsistency in the provisions of a 
specification, if read and found
to be accurate, may result in something being added to the errata for 
a document.

I would suggest that the 'comments to' email address be included in 
the contact information
provided in a MIME type registration request.

As far as identifying The Consortium it should suffice to use the URI 
http://www.w3.org/ as
identification in this context.

It would be helpful, but probably not required by the IETF 
pro-formas, to also allude to the
process for change control by a reference to the W3C Process Document 
identified as:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/

Al

>Regards,    Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:25:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:26 UTC