Re: Request for comments for Media Type registration ofapplication/ccxml+xml

At 13:05 04/07/27 -0700, RJ Auburn wrote:

>On 07/21/2004 22:03, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > These comments are as much about the general "IETF MIME type
> > registration from W3C recommendation" as they are about this
> > particular registration:
>
>
>Martin: Would you be the person to handle/address the general issues?

Yes. For everybody's information, RJ is following the procedure laid
out at http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html#Planned.
Because he is the first to do so, this is a very good case to see
where we have to tweak that description. I have already made two
additions:
1) Added a sentence "Make sure that this part of the specification
    is readable on its own, without the context of the specification."
    [for further details, a good example is probably better than a
     lot of explanations]
2) Added a sentence "To make it easier for your WG to track comments
    on the Media Type section, you may cross-post the comments list
    for your specification."
    [I want to leave this to the group for the moment. They have to
     show that they addressed comments to the IESG, so having that
     documented in a last call table may have advantages and
     disadvantages.]

Also, I'm planning to add some pointers to examples to the above
description, once we have them. That should make it easier for
others to do this.


> > Your translation from HTML to ASCII left out line breaks
> > before heading lines, which made your template hard
> > to read.
>
>If needed I can resubmit a nicer looking version. Let me know...

I guess that can wait for the next time you send something anyway,
but I hope this will be soon.


> >> Published specification:
> >>
> >> This media type registration is for CCXML documents as
> >> described by this specification.
> >
> > I'm not 100% sure if this is necessary, but I'd expect
> > if the template were to appear elsewhere to see
> > a bibliographic citation, e.g.,
> >
> > "Voice Browser Call Control: CCXML Version 1.0", W3C
> > Working Draft, 30 April 2004, W3C, <http://www.w3.org/TR/ccxml/>
> >
> > Is "this specification" (or the whole specification) precise
> > enough?  In some other cases, a single W3C recommendation defines
> > many different data types. Perhaps it would be useful to
> > say, somewhere, e.g., that the MIME type refers to XML bodies that
> > conform to the DTD/Schema referenced in Appendix B and C and
> > interpreted by the rules in the cited specification.
>
>
>Pointing at the schema/dtd sections seems reasonable.  How is this for text:
>
>Published specification:
>     This media type registration is for XML bodies that
>     conform to the DTD/Schema referenced in Appendix B and C and
>     interpreted by the rules this specification

'this specification' -> 'of this specification'


> >> Person & email address to contact for further information:
> >>
> >> RJ Auburn, <rj@voxeo.com>.
> >
> > Should there be a W3C contact as well?
>
>
>Dave/Max/Martin: Thoughts?

Adding the name of a staff contact or so might be a good idea.


> >> Intended usage:
> >>
> >> COMMON
> >> Author/Change controller:
> >>
> >> The CCXML specification is a work product of the World Wide Web
> > Consortium's
> >> Voice Browser Working Group. The W3C has change control over these
> >> specifications.
> >
> > Or perhaps the W3C contact address should be listed here.
>
>Dave/Max/Martin: Thoughts?

The W3C is 'on the Web', not at a particular physical location.
This kind of wording has been used in some previous registrations,
and should be okay.


Regards,    Martin.

Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:04:47 UTC