Subject: Re: Pursuing question of mime types in W3C specifications and nextactions

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:51:10 -0400

>> Yesterday I participated in a W3C/IETF coordination
>> call where one of the topics was about the registration
>> of mime types defined by W3C Recommendations. A summary
>> of the meeting will be available soon to the W3C Membership.
>
>what about the IETF membership?

Why would the process be any different for the W3C than for anybody else? It is perfectly possible to have a MIME registration RFC that references a non-IETF document for the actual syntax of the format.  For example, see RFC-3240.

/==============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer           |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.      |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com <<http://www.incentivesystems.com/>>  |My opinions are my own.      |
|==============================================================|
|"HTTP is what happens in the absence of good design." -- Keith|
|Moore                                                         |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Joseph Reagle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:54:52 -0400

On Friday 28 June 2002 03:29 pm, John Stracke wrote:
> It is perfectly possible to have a MIME registration RFC that references
> a non-IETF document for the actual syntax of the format.  For example,
> see RFC-3240.

Note, that under my present understanding (making the best of present
process) the W3C will be putting the *whole* [1] of the registration
document into the W3C spec. I was originally pursuing the strategy [2] akin
to 3240 but some think the spec itself should contain the registry
information, so I will move the non-boilerplate content of [2] into the W3C
document, and the next version of the internet-draft will be nothing more
than a one line statement saying "see appendix foo in W3C spec." Even so,
you get into hairy situations with which spec becomes stable first, and
which way the references flow under this scenario (which I try to address
with [1]) though an improved process is desired by some.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reagle-xenc-mediatype-00.txt

---

From: Mark Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:28:19 -0400

> Why would the process be any different for the W3C than for anybody else? It is perfectly possible to have a MIME registration RFC that references a non-IETF document for the actual syntax of the f…

Some W3C groups are trying to follow a finding[1] of the W3C's Technical
Architecture Group[2], to include the media type registration form
(for an IETF tree media type) within their specifications[3].

The process will have to be a little different if W3C working groups
are to follow that finding.  However, that *does not* mean that we are
trying to subvert the IESG review required for IETF tree media types.
We want to work together to figure out how best to tweak the process
while respecting the important parts of the existing process.

FWIW, one idea I've had is to publish the registration form as an I-D
to get IESG approval, but with explicit intent of *not* taking it to
RFC, and instead pasting the IESG-approved text verbatim into the
relevant W3C spec.

Thanks.

BTW, I'm only speaking for myself, not for the W3C or any W3C working
group.  So that suggestion is mine and mine alone - if it's wildly
disrespectful of the existing process, kindly disregard. 8-)

 [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
 [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               [email-masked]
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:42:40 +0100 (BST)

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, John Stracke wrote:

> Why would the process be any different for the W3C than for anybody
> else? It is perfectly possible to have a MIME registration RFC that
> references a non-IETF document for the actual syntax of the format.
> For example, see RFC-3240.

The W3C members pay good money to see that their formats become
standards, dammit.

To be clear, I am asking why the summary of the meeting will only be
made available to the (closed, fee-paying) W3C membership.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>