- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:53:16 -0400
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Tuesday 11 June 2002 11:58 am, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > 1) Published the following completed findings: > > - "Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use": > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime >W3C Working Groups engaged in defining a language SHOULD >arrange for the registration of an Internet Media Type (defined in >RFC 2046 [RFC2046]) for that language. 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. As I've noted earlier this could introduce a source of delay and confusion in the advancement of W3C specifications. Unless the TAG has determined that the IESG/IANA finds a section of a W3C specification to be an adequate registration request this means we'll have one version in a W3C specification, and one version published as an ietf-draft and subsequent Informational RFC contingent about IESG timing and discretion. (I noted it took ~6 months to publish the xmldsig requirements Informational RFC). The W3C will not be able to publish the CR until the IETF publishes the Informational RFC I presume? Which is unfortunate as implementation and operational experience might inform the media type registration, requiring a new Informational RFC. Consequently, I disagree with this finding and prefer that the media type registration proceed as specified in RFC2048; a W3C specification SHOULD reference the IETF document.
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 12:53:24 UTC