- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:57:15 -0600
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 09:51, Chris Lilley wrote: > 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. I added a status label to reflect the uncertainty around it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 12:57:16 UTC