- From: Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:11:51 +0000
- To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- CC: "john+ietf@jck.com" <john+ietf@jck.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "tony+mtsuffix@maillennium.att.com" <tony+mtsuffix@maillennium.att.com>
Hello Noah, > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ned Freed > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:50 PM > To: Noah Mendelsohn > Cc: john+ietf@jck.com; ned+ietf@mrochek.com; www-tag@w3.org; apps-discuss@ietf.org; tony+mtsuffix@maillennium.att.com > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] W3C TAG Comment on Draft Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures > > > The W3C Technical Architecture Group have been concerned about > > conflicting sources of definitions of fragment identifier semantics > > located by following RFC 3986 and the media type definition. We > > believe that those defining and registering media types (including > > ones that follow generic rules such as 3023bis) need more explicit > > advice than currently contained within draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs. I'm the document shepherd and responsible working group co-chair for this document. I concur with Ned on all of his points, perhaps especially that the timing of this kind of input is unfortunate. Can you provide (hopefully quickly) more specifics about the advice you think is absent from the draft? -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair
Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 06:15:57 UTC