- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:39:05 +0000
- To: reagle@w3.org
- Cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, LMM@acm.org, w3c-policy@apps.ietf.org, www-tag@w3.org
Echoing what Larry said, there are some proposals on the table, to address
this and other IANA-registry related issues.
One advantage I see for the URN route is that it conveys some indication of
the name being chosen and specified through a community consensus process.
#g
--
At 06:40 PM 1/16/02 -0500, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>Putting aside my confusion or disagreement with both of your reasons -- not
>uncommon to happen on this topic -- I want to focus on my immediate
>requirement: who/how do I ask such that URIs are allocated for the
>registered mediatypes (and better yet their paramter/values)?
>
>On Wednesday 16 January 2002 14:33, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > Nor any policy that they should not.
> >
> > I would strongly argue *against* defining a URL for each media-type.
> > First, because this would constrain how IANA organizes its site in
> > the future. Second, because it would encourage the practice of
> > using URLs in place of registered names, thereby creating confusion
> > and bypassing the established mechanisms for registration of those names.
> >
> > Keith
>
>--
>
>Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
>W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
>IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/
>W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
--------------------------
__
/\ \ Graham Klyne
/ \ \ (GK@ACM.ORG)
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 17:50:10 UTC