Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-04-09 18:57, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> * Technical summary
>
> This is the right thing to do, and should have been done right after the end of the UTF wars.
>
> * Editorial issues
>
> The document appears to spell out a SHOULD for "text/html" and "text/xml".
> Does it change the meaning of text/html and text/xml?

No. But it licenses future revisions of these specs to do the right thing.

> Reading more closely, this apparently isn't meant, but there is a potential misunderstanding.

We tried to clarify this in the latest draft. Can you suggest changes?

> More generally:
> When looking at a random media type three years from now, how do I find out whether this sentence does apply:
>     It does not change the
>     defaults for any currently registered media type.

The media type definition will have to state the default.

> Even more generally:
> Who is affected by (needs to read) this specification?
> Who are the targets of the SHOULDs and MUSTs?
> How do I find out whether an implementation complies?  interoperates?

The audience is people registering media types.

And yes, one could argue this spec needs to RFC2119 keywords.

> And meta^3:
> What is the IETF name for specifications that are exclusively intended to remind us not to make a certain class of mistake again when generating future specifications?  Which specification wins when such a meta-specification is neglected in a specific specification?

This document updates RFC 2046, I don't think more needs to be done here...

Best regards, Julian