[todo] Response to LC Comment -2418 on Media Ontology spec

Robin is not fully satisfied with the 3 remaining issues.
We must respond to robin on these 3 issues.



Issue 2418-A:
-------------
>> About "A controlled vocabulary such as [BCP 47] SHOULD be used.", SHOULD will be replaced by RECOMMENDED in the next version of the document: we recommend the use of a controlled vocabulary over non-controlled values, but it is not a strong compliance requirement for using the Media Ontology.

> According to RFC 2119 SHOULD and RECOMMENDED are equivalent, so this is essentially a non-change. Specifically, they "mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." I can see how using a SHOULD/RECOMMEND here may make sense, but you SHOULD (heh!) provide implementers with some information as to why a controlled vocabulary is better — that was they can "understand the implications". But I won't formally object over that.


Issue 2418-B:
-------------
>> About "ma:format include media type parameters?": yes, it does include bucket media types (the new version of the document includes this specification).
>
> I will be satisfied with this resolution if it includes a grammar, a pointer to a grammar, or any other clear way of parsing the value.

Issue 2418-C:
-------------
>> About the "XPath heterogeneity problem": it is being harmonized and will be consistent in the new version of the document.
>
> For this I would kindly ask that the WG send me a pointer to the harmonised version once it is ready so that I may review it.

--> Felix sent a pointer to Robin to the the Xpath harmonised version.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Sep/0238.html

so for this issue we are expecting an answer from Robin.



All other issues from LC Comment -2418 are closed.

thierry.

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 15:48:11 UTC