Proposed changes to Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use


I have edited the TAG finding "Internet Media Type
registration, consistency of use" [1] to include
proposals resulting from two action items:

1) Changes to registration requirements in light of
    a better understanding of interactions between
    W3C, IETF, and IANA processes. Joseph Reagle
    has written a document entitled ""How to Register a
    Media Type with IANA" [4]. This document recommends
    a process whereby the registration information is part
    of an Internet Draft (not part of a W3C specification)
    and must be available for review along with the
    specification. The finding text has been updated to
    refer to that "best practice" document. The revised
    language is:

      "The IETF registration forms MUST be available for
       review along with the specification no later than
       Candidate Recommendation (or at last call if the
       Working Group expects to advance directly to Proposed
       Recommendation). The IETF registration forms SHOULD be
       available for review no later than last call."

    This may obviate Joseph's objection [3] to the previous

    Since the process described in [4] has not been heavily
    tested, there is a cautionary note in the references
    section, designed to address a concern raised by Paul
    Cotton. The language is:


     "How to Register a Media Type with IANA". This is an informal
     document intended to capture best practice for requests that a
     Mime Type defined by a W3C Recommendation be registered in the
     IANA registry. This document may change as W3C learns from
     experience or as processes in the various organizations evolve.

2) Incorporate comments from Chris Lilley about charset
    headers [2]. I have modified section 3, and made some
    editorial changes to Chris' text.

Your comments on both proposals welcome,

  - Ian

Ian Jacobs (
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 11:39:29 UTC