Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

[Catching up with old email.]

Nathan wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 02:51:37 +0100, Larry Masinter 
>> <> wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if a broader look at the role of registries
>>> in the web architecture, in the face of various deployment
>>> models, might give us some better insights about how to address
>>> the problems:
>>> registered namespaces: URI schemes, HTTP headers, link
>>> relations, xpointer tokens, MIME types
>>> standards-track-only namespaces: element & attribute names
>>> in any particular HTML/XML language, HTTP error codes...
>>> Requirements:
>>> * longevity & reliability of the registration information
>>> * process for maintaining technical requirements for registered
>>>   values
>>> * ease of registering new values, even when they don't
>>>   meet technical requirements
>>> * technical, social, security review of registered entries
>>> * avoiding registration spam, drift of control
>>> * avoiding incompatible use of registered values in
>>>  different contexts
>>> * dealing with trademarks
>> I think this would be a very valuable exercise.
> agree
>> an X prefix.
>> this is maybe because there is a  community behind these that feels 
>> responsible
> Anne, I think the above two points hit the nail on the head, drop the 
> X- prefixes and get a community who feels responsible / can review*, 
> that would (imo) fix the problems with the registries for mime types, 
> headers and all else related - well said.
> * no disrespect to Ned Freed et al, another few Neds would be good to 
> have though!

The MIME type registry currently has 2 expert reviewers. Do you think 
more reviewers are needed?

Note that these experts don't review registrations in the standards 
tree. The latter are reviewed by IESG. I don't think IESG was a 
bottleneck recently.

Best Regards,

IETF Application Area Director, <>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <>
JID: same as my email address

Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 19:30:18 UTC