Re: ACTION-686: Sniffing

Robin, we had an open issue about stable references, under the banner of the question of whether updates to normative references automatically apply.

I tend to agree that this is best resolved as process issue, and want to officially hand it off to the w3c group responsible for the w3c process.

if the ab chooses to drop it or delegate it, fine. But since the tag first chose to take up the issue, it seems fitting to close tag work on the topic.

I'm sorry it wasnt clear that this was not just about this one incident.... there are persistent questions about references to specs, not only from w3c recs but also from registries.... for example, does the text/html media type registration require an update at all? If we use undated URIs instead of dated, named references in a technical specification, what are the persistence requirements, how do we account for meaning in such a world? If technical specs had rdf statements of their conformance criteria, how would you account for conformance in the various proposed resolutions of httpRange-14?

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless


-----Original message-----
From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Wed, Apr 25, 2012 19:27:14 GMT+00:00
Subject: ACTION-686: Sniffing

Hi all,

I was given the action item to check up on where content sniffing is at and who's editing it.

I can confirm that the proper reference document is this one http://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/ and that Adam Barth is editing it.

I guess that that would make for a better reference than the I-D that expired, maybe the Widget Rec should be edited in place to reflect that (but that's an issue for WebApps to worry about).

I don't think that the TAG has any business applying itself to specification engineering issues such as unstable references; doubly so since this one is already covered by common practice (which also means no AB involvement since it's custom and not law).

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon