- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:44:21 -0800
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
It looks like the document is a mix between the old and new processes; it caused some of the confusion around the registration of application/soap+xml. IMHO it should be updated to fully match the new process and then have a strengthened disclaimer attached to it until the new process comes into effect. Does anyone have an idea/inkling of when the new process will go RFC? On Dec 5, 2003, at 9:57 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 09:51, Chris Lilley wrote: >> On Friday, December 5, 2003, 12:05:52 PM, Graham wrote: >> >> >> GK> At 17:30 04/12/03 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >>>> While it's good that we are agreed, and the >>>> webarch doc is pretty well done with this, >>>> there's still work to do on issue >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#w3cMediaType-1 >>>> >>>> People still seem to be using >>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html >>>> as guidance, and I haven't figured out whether I believe >>>> that thing or not. >> >> GK> I wasn't aware of that document, but it looks plausible. >> >> I am aware of it, uncomfortable with it, and wish the new process >> would move from ID to RFC so we could start using it. > > I added a status label to reflect the uncertainty around it. > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ >
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2003 04:47:06 UTC