- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:36:50 +0100
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Noah, On 24 Apr 2012, at 22:39, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > You have > > ACTION-680: on - Jeni Tennison - Lead TAG telcon review (rescheduled) of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-04 - Due: 2012-04-24 - PENDING REVIEW > > (writing as TAG chair) > > I see that there was discussion last week [1], resulting in a resolution that is in general supportive of the draft, along with some other proposed text. Accordingly, I'm assuming that those on the call would likely have intended to close ACTION-680? Yes, I think so, although we deferred discussion of next steps. > (writing as an individual TAG member) > > Had I been on the call, I would likely have pointed out my suggestion [2] that it would be useful to have a stronger health warning about the choice that subtypes SHOULD (as opposed to MUST) follow the fragment interpretation of a base type. To restate in brief: I think it would be appropriate to warn that in cases where (specification for) the subtype allows for interpretation of any particular identifier(s) in a way that conflicts with that mandated for the base, generic processors will produce erroneous results. The consequences in such situations might include: (1) generic processors become impractical for such types (2) users are inconvenienced by links that do not resolve as intended (3) systems crash or serious errors result from the wrong data being processed. > > So, I will look for comments on that between now and Thursday, and maybe mention it briefly on the call to see if others are moved by my suggestion. If not, I expect to let it go. Thank you. > > Noah > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes#item03 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0125.html I think that your note went to Tony and apps-discuss so I imagine that he/they will take it into consideration for his document; it didn't seem to be a comment on the suggestions that we made to Ned for incorporation into the media type registration draft, which is what the resolution was about, but correct me if I'm wrong. Your comments also seem like exactly the kind of guidance that we'd want to put into a more discursive document about best practices around media type registrations, which is what I was suggesting as a next step from the TAG in this work. Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 07:37:23 UTC