- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 15:23:11 -0400
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- CC: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On 5/6/11 3:22 PM, Hausenblas, Michael wrote: >> Ah. They're not in the registration document, but that's presumably just because the template in RFC 4288 doesn't ask for that information. > > It's a SHOULD (cf sec. 4.11 of RFC 4288), but let's not do spec lawyering ;) I'm not spec lawyering. I would expect that anyone registering a type takes the provided template and just fills it in; reading anything into omission of data in the registration that this template doesn't ask for is not reasonably. > I do not disagree and I don't see a problem. If you read my review on the Wiki page carefully, I back then suggested to proactively approach people to sort out things. Now as the SVG case is known to the WG it should be treated respectively. OK. How is it planned to be treated, then? -Boris
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 19:23:43 UTC