- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:56:09 -0500
- To: public-media-fragment@w3.org
- Cc: public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
In http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology I see: "This essentially means that only media type definitions (as registered through the process defined in RFC 4288) are able to introduce a standard structure on URI fragments for that mime type." so far so good; then... "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? It doesn't seem responsible for W3C to Recommend the media fragments spec without some plan in place to get the IETF/IANA registrations updated. I suggest (a) getting one or more IETF area directors to agree to get the registrations updated (b) making CR exit contingent on one or two of the registrations getting updated The WG schedule currently has a fairly short CR period http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/ That makes a certain amount of sense given that I see fairly detailed discussion of test cases already. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/thread.html#msg7 So if plans are not already underway to get the registrations updated, I suggest getting started soon. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 16:56:12 UTC