- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:52:29 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Tuesday 11 June 2002 02:35 pm, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I see no reason why a brief registration document should not defer to a
> W3C spec for the primary definition of a W3C-defined standard
> content-type.
Yes, but you still need the registration document, to be published as a
ietf-draft, and then Informational RFC. I agree that references can be made
from the IETF document to a W3C document, which I do [1], but I still have
to carry the requirements in the IETF context. A reference from a REC to
the Informational RFC for the official media type registration is
appropriate; a reference to an Informational RFC media type registry to a
W3C REC is appropriate. I don't understand why/how to replicate the
registration in two document and the mandatory CR dependency. I'd prefer to
write an ietf-draft for the media type registration, go to CR, and then go
to InfoRFC as I leave CR.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Jun/att-0011/01-draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype-00.txt
Security considerations:
Security considerations include many of those described in
the Security Considerations of [XENC].
Interoperability considerations: none
Published specification: [XENC].
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 14:52:31 UTC