Re: [ietf-types] Registration of media typeimage/svg+xml

+1.  

Let's try to make things clear for people who are reading just the type registration.  Someone who looks at the registration separately from the RFC or other specification shouldn't have to guess as to what "this specification" is.

Keith

On Nov 25, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:

> Hello Chris, Larry,
> 
> On 2010/11/25 7:16, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> 
>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 9:14:12 PM, Larry wrote:
>> 
>> LM>  Martin, in a couple of places you complained that the SVG registration
>> LM>  template, contained in a W3C document, referred to "this specification",
>> LM>  and said:
>> 
>> LM>  # "this specification" doesn't work when the registration template is
>> LM>  # taken out of the SVG spec. Either say "the SVG specification" or
>> LM>  # explicitly reference a specific version of the specification.
>> 
>> LM>  However, I think it is common practice both in W3C and IETF, that
>> LM>  a registration template embedded within another document can
>> LM>  reasonably say "this specification" to mean the document in which
>> LM>  it is embedded,
> 
> In that context, this looks reasonable, but out of context, it does no longer make sense. Registration are often taken out of context, and should be able to stand alone, without readers having to guess what "the specification" might be.
> 
>> LM>  with the registry itself pointing to an
>> LM>  explicit version of the spec as well as the template within.
> 
> IANA often, if not always, lists the relevant RFC. But I haven't seen them listing other specifications. I may have missed it. Anyway, that's usually outside the registration, so the registration is still not standalone.
> 
>> Larry, your interjection is timely, as I was just about to edit the registration to address Martin's comment.
>> 
>> Given that we already have
>> 
>> Published specification:
>> 
>>     This media type registration is extracted from Appendix P of the
>>     SVG 1.1 specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/
>> 
>> I'm tempted to just s/this specification/the published specification/
> 
> Great! That makes the registration standalone, while at the same time doesn't look weird inside the specification.
> 
>> LM>  There are plenty of examples... perhaps those comments don't apply?
> 
> The fact that there are plenty of examples doesn't mean that we can't fix it when we have a chance. I don't think it's worth doing back and fixing one by one, but if we are working on a registration anyway, we can make it better form the start.
> 
>> LM>  (This comment applies to all registries, not just of media types.)
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> -- 
> #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-types mailing list
> ietf-types@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
> 