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

From: Chris Lilley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:51:35 +0200

On Friday, June 28, 2002, 11:28:19 PM, Mark wrote:

MB> On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:51:10PM -0400, 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.

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

Yes - and it is likely that this will become policy over time.

MB> The process will have to be a little different if W3C working groups
MB> are to follow that finding.  However, that *does not* mean that we are
MB> trying to subvert the IESG review required for IETF tree media types.

That is correct and in fact the intent is exactly the reverse - to
ensure that W3C working groups consider the media registration as part
of their final deliverable, start work on it early enough, and that
the media type documentation gets the same review as the rest of the
specification (last call, candidate rec, AC review, etc).

MB> We want to work together to figure out how best to tweak the process
MB> while respecting the important parts of the existing process.

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

That gets it into the spec eventuually; it would be better to be in
the spec early on and to handle IESG comments along with other last
call comments, for example.

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:[email-masked]