W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [apps-discuss] W3C TAG Comment on Draft Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:07:08 -0600
Message-ID: <4F8C43AC.10005@stpeter.im>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, tony+mtsuffix@maillennium.att.com, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, john+ietf@jck.com, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 4/13/12 11:00 PM, Ned Freed wrote:

>> Perhaps that's the best way of handling it, and nothing needs to be said
>> specifically about fragments identifiers for top-level types.
> 
> This isn't an option either. This is a registration best current practices
> (BCP) document that sets down rules for registering media types. Default or
> intrinsic syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers associated with a
> particular top-level type is a protocol specification. This isn't allowed in a
> BCP - BCPs are one shot affairs and not subject to interoperability testing,
> which rather obviously would apply to the specification of such semantics.
> 
> If you want to put this stuff in an RFC, it needs to one that's on the regular
> standards track. And that means it needs to be in a different document. All you 
> can put in this document are the registration rules for specifying a fragment
> identifier. Nothing more.

Ned is right: this document defines best practices for *registering*
media types. We all might want to more clearly specify the syntax and
semantics of fragment identifiers, but IMHO that's out of scope for the
registration procedures per se.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 16:07:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC