- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:05:59 -0400
- 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