- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:28:19 -0400
- To: John Stracke <JStracke@incentivesystems.com>
- Cc: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, ietf@ietf.org, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, ned.freed@mrochek.com, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:51:10PM -0400, John Stracke wrote: > Why would the process be any different for the W3C than for anybody else? It is perfectly possible to have a MIME registration RFC that references a non-IETF document for the actual syntax of the format. For example, see RFC-3240. Some W3C groups are trying to follow a finding[1] of the W3C's Technical Architecture Group[2], to include the media type registration form (for an IETF tree media type) within their specifications[3]. The process will have to be a little different if W3C working groups are to follow that finding. However, that *does not* mean that we are trying to subvert the IESG review required for IETF tree media types. We want to work together to figure out how best to tweak the process while respecting the important parts of the existing process. FWIW, one idea I've had is to publish the registration form as an I-D to get IESG approval, but with explicit intent of *not* taking it to RFC, and instead pasting the IESG-approved text verbatim into the relevant W3C spec. Thanks. BTW, I'm only speaking for myself, not for the W3C or any W3C working group. So that suggestion is mine and mine alone - if it's wildly disrespectful of the existing process, kindly disregard. 8-) [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 17:17:49 UTC