Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Sam Ruby and Dan Connolly asked me to send proposed issue closures  
>> in individual emails, with clear subject lines, and Cc'd to the  
>> issue originator when possible. Apologies for the spam. If there  
>> are no objections, I will close this issue on 2009-09-03.
>> ------------
>> ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - Need to update media type registrations
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/53
>> This issue points out that the media type registrations for text/ 
>> html and application/xhtml+xml need to be updated. My understanding  
>> of the agreement between the IETF and W3C is as follows: at Last  
>> Call time, we should warn the IETF that we plan to update the media  
>> type registration and provide them with the text for a provisional  
>> registration, and when the spec becomes a REC, the registration  
>> becomes official, based on text in the W3C spec. The spec now  
>> includes provisional registrations for text/html, application/xhtml 
>> +xml, and other content types defined by the spec:
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#iana-considerations
>> Therefore, I believe our responsibility to IANA for updating media  
>> type registrations is fulfilled. Thus, this issue should be closed.
>> ...
>
> I don't think that is sufficient:
>
> a) the current registration looses information from RFC 2854 -- RFC  
> 2854 applies to all HTML vocabularies (and references them), while  
> the HTML5 just describes the "current" language. (this could of  
> course be fixed in HTML5 by adding that historic information in the  
> right place)

Could you succinctly describe the information that should be added in  
email or a bugzilla bug? Adding info to the media type registration  
sounds like a separate issue from having a registration at all. We can  
also raise an ISSUE on adding the needed info if you explain what it  
is and don't expect to be able to work out the issue with the Editor.

> b) we still should obsolete RFC 2854 in the RFC Index.

Shouldn't we wait to do that until the updated registration is ready  
to go through? That is to say, this should happen at the PR  
transition, not the LC transition, because it would be wrong to  
obsolete RFC 2854 in favor of a provisional registration.

> I think the simplest approach to this would be to simply update RFC  
> 2854 with the new information.

Is that a technical objection, or a personal preference? My  
understanding is that this not the way the W3C handles media  
registrations nowadays. So I think it would be inappropriate to hold  
up Last Call based on a request to do things differently than all  
other recent W3C specs, unless there is some concrete technical reason  
to do so. I believe we are following the correct process for a W3C  
spec to update an IANA media type registration.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 07:12:55 UTC