Re: Dissent: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use

>> 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.
>
> nor do I.  furthermore, processing the registration document in parallel
> with the spec, rather than sequentially, will probably speed things up
> considerably - which also argues for separating the registration document
> from the specification.

I think this discussion is getting out of context.  The TAG finding was
that media type registration documents must be prepared as part of the
language definition and included in the published draft.  It does not
state that the registration can't be submitted during the process of
draft approval, nor does it state that the registration cannot be
modified over time.  What it requires is that the registration forms
receive adequate review by those responsible for the specification of
the media format and that the registration forms receive the same
attention to format versions/modifications as the language itself.

The reason for this is because media type registrations have
frequently been inaccurate, often submitted by people who have no
responsibility for the media format, and fail to be revised over
time when the format changes.


Cheers,

Roy T. Fielding, Chief Scientist, Day Software
                  (roy.fielding@day.com) <http://www.day.com/>

                  Chairman, The Apache Software Foundation
                  (fielding@apache.org)  <http://www.apache.org/>

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 15:52:11 UTC