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 Saint-Andre
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