- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:53:36 +0100
- To: reagle@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
At 12:53 PM 6/11/02 -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote: >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. [...] [Following some offline discussion] How about the following revision of the above paragraph: [[ 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. An initial publication of the appropriate MIME type registration template SHOULD be available as part of the specification starting at Candidate Recommendation. ]] The aim of this is to respect the architectural requirement without stepping too heavily on process detail. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 13:07:21 UTC