Re: How many coding registries should we have? (Issue 143), was: Issue 189, Re: Content/Transfer-Codings organization/IANA considerations (issue 143, 188, 189) from Julian Reschke on 2010-04-10 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2010)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:29:32 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4BC0611C.9040901@gmx.de>

On 09.04.2010 10:04, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 09.04.2010 10:01, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> If that implies they'll be separate registries (possibly with the same
>> URL, as it is now), works for me.
>
> Ack.
>
> Essentially it'll be an instruction to the Designated Experts.
> ...

Proposed changes (see 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/143/>):

Part 1:

    Names of transfer codings MUST NOT overlap with names of content
    codings (Section 2.2 of [Part3]), unless the encoding transformation
    is indeed identical (as it is the case for the compression codings
    defined in Section 6.2.2).

Part 3:

    Names of content codings MUST NOT overlap with names of transfer
    codings (Section 6.2 of [Part1]), unless the encoding transformation
    is indeed identical (as it is the case for the compression codings
    defined in Section 6.2.2 of [Part1]).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Saturday, 10 April 2010 11:30:15 UTC