- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:51:53 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Friday, December 5, 2003, 12:05:52 PM, Graham wrote: GK> At 17:30 04/12/03 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >>While it's good that we are agreed, and the >>webarch doc is pretty well done with this, >>there's still work to do on issue >> >>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#w3cMediaType-1 >> >>People still seem to be using >> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html >>as guidance, and I haven't figured out whether I believe >>that thing or not. GK> I wasn't aware of that document, but it looks plausible. I am aware of it, uncomfortable with it, and wish the new process would move from ID to RFC so we could start using it. GK> From recollection, the requirement of IETF tree registration, per GK> RFC2048, is publication in an IESG-approved RFC (doesn't have to GK> be standards-track). This is changing, though. The IETF tree is being rebranded the Standards Tree, for example. GK> My approach would have been to request IESG approval for GK> publication, rather than simply copying them on a request to GK> rfc-editor. In practice, the latter (per Reagle's note) is probably more GK> efficient. GK> The other point I would question is waiting until the W3C spec becomes a GK> REC before requesting registration. This is a known broken catch-22 and the new process fixes it. GK> That adds further delay, and in the GK> meantime the registration template exists in an Internet-draft form that GK> folks can't be expected to find or take seriously. I think that as soon as GK> there is a stable and credible specification to point at then it's GK> appropriate to request registration. Before CR, for example. Otherwise, it can't be implemented and tested. >>The RDF Core WG is still kinda confused; >>at least: I am. GK> I'm not sure if we're confused, or just unfocused on this issue. So far, GK> as I see it, we've been treating the application/rdf+xml as a document to GK> be progressed on a track roughly in step with the W3C documents. The GK> document has been prepared, and updated in response to comments, by Aaron GK> and IMO is ready to request publication when we are ready to request it. >>Ian, the issues list cites the 3 Jun 2002 minutes in >>the acknowledgement cycle. I'm afraid that doesn't cut it. >>We need to get back to the folks that asked us about this >>issue and ask them if we've actually given sufficient guidance. >> >>Plus, there are ongoing negotiations with the IETF about >>registering media types developed in W3C. >> >>I happened to chat about this with Reagle the other day; >>some breadcrumbs... >> >>draft-freed-mime-p4-04 >>posted by DanC at 2003-11-26 19:14 (+) >> >> DanC: Internet Draft by Freed, Klensin October 20, 2003 >> DanC: IETF tracker status says "In State: Waiting for Writeup" >> DanC: see also TAG issue w3cMediaType-1 >> DanC: and How to Register a Media Type with IANA (for the IETF >> tree) >>http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/11/26/2003-11-26.html#1069874064.819537 GK> I was aware of the existence of this new draft, but until it is actually GK> approved I would stick with what is already published. Yes, we have to until its published. I hope it gets published soon. GK> #g GK> -- GK> ------------ GK> Graham Klyne GK> For email: GK> http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 10:51:53 UTC