RE: Proposed changes to Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use

> (Skipping "CR" is a (theoretical?) exception/possibility and I don't
see
> any need to qualify every bit of process with it.)

I think the TAG crafted these words since the first instance that we
were applying this rule to, was the W3C XML Protocol WG whose SOAP 1.2
specification needed a media type and whose Last Call document clearly
states [1]:

===
Following completion of Last Call, the XML Protocol Working Group has
agreed to advance the specification according to four exit criteria:

1. Sufficient reports of implementation experience have been gathered to
demonstrate that SOAP processors based on the specification are
implementable and have compatible behavior.

2. An implementation report shows that there are at least two different
and interoperable implementations of every mandatory and optional
feature.

3. Formal responses to all comments received by the Working Group.

4. If these criteria are met, the specification will advance to Proposed
Recommendation. If the implementation exit criteria are not met then the
specification will enter a Candidate Recommendation phase to ensure they
are met.
===

This clear intent on skipping CR certainly seems to counter your theory
that skipping CR is a "theoretical" event but of course we will have to
see what actually happens.

BTW I have no problem with either the original wording or your changes.
I am only trying to explain the "history". 

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/ 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:59 AM
> To: Ian B. Jacobs; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed changes to Internet Media Type registration,
> consistency of use
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 04 September 2002 11:35 am, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > 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].
> 
> Ian, removing the particulars and referring to this document instead
> satisfies my concerns with the TAG finding. (However, I'll note I'm
not
> yet
> confident that there is agreement from the IESG about the particulars
of
> [4].) My only concern is with the comprehensibility of "no later than"
> sentences -- the always muddle me!
> 
> >       "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."
> 
> "The media type registration information SHOULD be available for
review
> during W3C Last Call and MUST be available prior to W3C Candidate
> Recommendation."
> 
> (Skipping "CR" is a (theoretical?) exception/possibility and I don't
see
> any
> need to qualify every bit of process with it.)
>

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 10:33:12 UTC