W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

RE: Media types for XHTML 1.x document

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:49:40 -0800
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, "dean@dean.org.nz" <dean@dean.org.nz>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118C85AC418@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>

In reply to my summary
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Feb/0041.html

Philippe wrote:
> nice summary of the chain of delegated authorities in the history of
> text/html and application/xhtml+xml.

...

> While we're here (and in case you're not aware of it), W3C also has a
> process to request approval of media types from the IESG [1]. Given that
> text/html and application/xhtml+xml are both RFCs, I'm not quite sure if
> W3C has the option of asking that the media types link directly to the
> W3C Recommendations in the future but we can ask the IESG if the time
> comes to do something about the RFCs.

> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html 

I suggest updating [1] to include explicit information about
"updating an existing MIME type registration", which also
points out the method of switching from the "old procedure"
to the "new procedure".

If W3C wants to change the registration of a type already
registered in IETF by a RFC (as with text/html, application/xml,
application/xhtml+xml), I think the right process would be for
W3C to write and submit to IETF a short document for publication
as RFC which obsoletes the existing one and contains the appropriate
pointer to the new authoritative registration.

I could even imagine doing that en masse, for several existing W3C
registrations, in order to normalize the process. I'm less
sure about the guidelines for "application/*+xml" though
in 3023, as non-W3C organizations should have the opportunity
to register MIME types of that form, and the process in [1]
doesn't address that consideration.

I think there might also be some interest in application/*+zip
or something related for packaged content.



Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 19:50:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC