Re: [apps-discuss] W3C TAG Comment on Draft Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 4/16/12 10:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Peter
>> Saint-Andre Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 9:07 AM To: Ned Freed Cc:
>> Jeni Tennison; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; Julian Reschke; Noah
>> Mendelsohn; [e-mail]; [e-mail] List Subject: Re:
>> [apps-discuss] W3C TAG Comment on Draft Media Type Specifications
>> and Registration Procedures
>> 
>>> If you want to put this stuff in an RFC, it needs to one that's
>>> on the regular standards track. And that means it needs to be in
>>> a different document. All you can put in this document are the
>>> registration rules for specifying a fragment identifier. Nothing
>>> more.
>> 
>> Ned is right: this document defines best practices for
>> *registering* media types. We all might want to more clearly
>> specify the syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers, but IMHO
>> that's out of scope for the registration procedures per se.
> 
> I think I agree.  Would it be an appropriate path forward to put that
> into another document, and then reference that one from this one as
> an Informative?

I don't think so. All we're trying to do here is make is easier for
folks to register media types. The thorny issues of the syntax and
semantics of media types and pointers thereto (which is what fragment
identifiers are at some level) are IMHO orthogonal to how you register
media types. Plus, the document we point to from the registration BCP
will likely change so significantly by the time it's done that the
citation will be mostly meaningless at this time.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/