- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:39:00 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> ... >> Issue 53 is simply "Need to update media type registrations". Outside >> of Larry, this part seems uncontroversial. As to Larry, it simply >> seems to me a matter of question asked and answered[1]. Larry is >> welcome to correct me if I am misunderstanding. >> >> There are some technical details[2], but it seems to me that Ian is >> willing to accept bug reports on these. The issue could be reopened >> should it turn out that Ian marks one or more of these bugs as >> WONTFIX, but we only would need to deal with that if it actually >> occurred and everything I see indicates that it will not. >> >> So, all that remains is the work. From what I can see in section 13, >> the work has been done. Other specs do it this way (in fact, I was >> associated with Atom, which is in the IETF and it did it this way -- >> see section 7 of RFC 4287), and it doesn't seem to me be a >> particularly egregious approach, so frankly I'm struggling to try to >> figure out what the real issue is here. > > I agree that this is the common approach, and I have done that in other > RFCs as well. > > However, I think the situation is a bit different for HTML, as the media > types are used for a variety of languages, and HTML5 does not describe > them all. > >> Julian, you indicated that the IETF recommended an approach, and you >> were willing to do the work. I fully appreciate that, but apparently >> that recommendation was made without the knowledge that the work is >> already done. > > 1) The IETF AFAIK hasn't made a recommendation; and I don't think it can > or will. Change control for these media types is in the W3C. > > 2) I made the recommendation *because* the editor added the registration > and I feel that this is not the best way to do it. OK, so lets open bug reports or issues on what the Working Draft currently states. >> I guess what I am asking here is: >> >> 1) Is there some significant technical issue with the approach >> that has been taken, or is this simply a matter of bug reports >> that have yet to be written? > > The significant issue (IMHO) is that the media types apply to all HTML > languages, and the current RFC (2854) describing those takes these into > account. HTML5 does not. Just so that I'm clear, from your perspective the core issue isn't "Need to update media type registrations", but rather that you believe that HTML 4.01 (as a concrete example) is a separate and distinct language from HTML 5. If I am understanding correctly, I believe that's fundamentally different issue than than the issue that was raised. If so, I would prefer that this issue be closed and a separate issue be raised. [I feel compelled to disclose that I favor an approach of viewing HTML5 as superseding prior versions of HTML, and treating as bugs any places where it doesn't adequately do so; but this in no way precludes opening of new issues] >> 2) Is there reason to believe that the IESG would not accept the >> work that has already been done? If not, I am having trouble >> understanding why ripping out this work and starting over >> would be simpler. > > There is an existing document describing the media types, so the > simplest approach would be just to update it. > > The editor has decided not to do that, but to in-line the registration. > This will work as well, as long as we do not lose significant information. > >> If there are no technical issues (modulo a few bug reports, and from >> what I can see, there is an agreement that these are bugs), and what >> currently exists is workable, I'm inclined to recommend closing this >> issue. >> ... > > I'm not sure what bugs you refer to. The main issue is that if the media > type registration moves from RFC 2854 to HTML5, it should preserve > information about earlier versions of the language -- see > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854#section-1>. The bugs I was referring to was the comments that you made that Ian has missed a few places, specifically meta/@scheme, and head/@profile. Ian indicated that he would get to them. I'm just suggesting that if this is important to you, perhaps bugzilla would be a reasonable way to track the changes needed. > BR, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 12:39:40 UTC