- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:41:48 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 30.03.2010 23:05, Sam Ruby wrote: >> ... >> Time permitting, can you add an agenda item to discuss cross-working >> group MIME type coordination? >> >> Since I have been named as co-chair, I've been consistently against >> "active development of two incompatible vocabularies being served >> with >> the same media type and being defined in the same XML namespace"[1] >> >> Yet, more recently, we've been informed[2], in a way that makes it >> sound >> like a fait accompli, that changes are being made to the remaining >> XHTML >> specs to do exactly that. >> ... > > +1 > > We talked about this shortly on the telco. Below a somewhat extended > version of what I had to say: > > From a standards point of view, new documents (be it NOTEs or RECs) > about text/html are *irrelevant*, until the media type registration > is updated as well. Even if these documents do not actually affect the registration, I think they are still a problem. It seems like a bad idea to have documents, whether WG Notes or RECs, that claim things about text/html which are in not accordance with the MIME registration, and which are not going to be submitted to IANA. That seems likely to create confusion. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 20:42:21 UTC