RE: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> · Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:48:20 -0700

The URI spec says that the meaning of fragment identifiers depends on the Internet media type registration, but what didn't happen was to update BCP 13 (Internet media type registration procedure and template) to ask about how the registered  type interpreted fragment identifiers.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ietf-w3c-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ietf-w3c-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 5:35 PM
To: Dan Connolly
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer; public-media-fragment@w3.org; public-ietf-w3c; ietf-types@alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

Well, ietf-types is important from a functional standpoint, but I don't know that it should be used to discuss the document itself. That sort of coordination should happen on apps-discuss and the URI list, I think.

Regards,

On 23/04/2010, at 12:19 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> +cc ietf-types@alvestrand.no ;
> thread begins at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/0039.html
> 
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
> [...]
>>> "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
>>> targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
>>> their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
>>> update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
>>> registration."
>>> 
>>> Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented?
>> 
>> I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment
>> specifications.
>> 
>> Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations
>> and then, if they catch on, update the RFC.
> 
> Well, that's a plan of sorts... but it's important to coordinate
> that with the IETF. It's not polite for W3C to unilaterally
> encourage implementations to deploy certain designs that will
> constrain updates to IETF RFCs.
> 
> I wonder who to coordinate with from the IETF side...
> The http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
> page says it's owned/run by Harald Alvestrand and Mark Baker (distobj).
> Does this play make sense to you?
> 
> Otherwise, Mark N., would you suggest anybody in particular
> to coordinate with?
> 
>> The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that
>> virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media
>> resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube,
>> these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page
>> URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes
>> for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting
>> MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash
>> since it always starts with mp().
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Silvia.
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/