W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

Internet Media Type registration Re: [Minutes] 8 July TAG teleconf (arch doc, media types, formatting props, whenToUseGet-7, augmentedInfoset-22)

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:05:59 -0400
Message-ID: <02c201c22c32$a85bca50$84001d12@w3.org>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>

>    2.2 Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use
>     [Ian]
>      Current text:
>      "If so, the IETF registration forms MUST be
>      part of the language specification, and SHOULD
>      be part of the specification starting at
>      Candidate Recommendation status (or Last Call
>      if the Working Group plans to have sufficient
>      implementation experience to bypass Candidate
>      Recommendation). "
>      DC: IETF area directors didn't say you had to
>      have the mime type in registry before you
>      could use it.
>     [DaveO]
>      hmm.. seeming less and less like an
>      architectural principle and more like w3c
>      process issue.

It  *sounds* like process, but it about what a spec
specifies which is architectural at heart. It is tangled
up with the process in terms of timing, I agree.

>     [Ian]
>      IJ: The text must be in spec, but isn't
>      required to be registered.
>      DC: Area directors said "Don't want to put in
>      the registry until it goes to Rec." They
>      prefer to just have internet draft published
>      every 6 months. They would rather your type
>      not be in registry but not in internet draft
>      index.
>      CL: What can we point to when people tell us
>      we are doing it wrong?
>      TB: I agree with DO's point that this is a
>      process issue. Let's rewrite finding to say
>      that registration process must proceed in
>      parallel with w3c process, and documents must
>      be readily available from w3c specs.

Disagree.  Any registration information must be a normative part of the spec

>      DC: Water down more: Registration information
>      is relevant and needs to be reviewed along
>      with everything else in your spec.

Remove timing but insist on normative.

>      IJ: Please note current best practice as we
>      understand it.
>      TB: if we write a strong arch principle saying
>      "You have to get this work done" then that is
>      enough for the Director to stand on.
>      PC: I think we need a cookbook for chairs on
>      what to do.
>      DO: I'd rather us spend more time on arch
>      principles and our issues list.
>     [TBray]
>      Particularly given that the TAG has
>      substantial consensus... it's irritating that
>      we have to keep investing time on this. If we
>      want a cookbook, how do we get it?
>     [Ian]
>      DC: I agree that this is process, but who do
>      we hand this to?
>      PC: Our finding should say "here lie
>      alligators" if uncertain process.
>     Action PC: Propose alternative wording for finding.
>     Action CL: Send copy of information sent to tag
>     regarding RFC3023 to www-tag.
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 15:06:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC