Joseph Reagle writes:
Regardless, this isn't a biggie, it just seems simpler to me to not
look for "endorsements" in the tree in any case, but instead look at
the status/level and quality of the spec, and if the IETF and W3C are
comfortable sitting next to each other on a branch, that's that.
<smile/>
I have some concerns about the "IETF and W3C... sitting next to each
other on a branch", particularly regarding architectural issues.
It seems fairly clear that the two organizations have different
perspectives on a regular basis - a notable recent case was www-tag
discussion of RFC 3205, where the W3C appears to be making an effort to
wave off application of 3205 to Web Services architecture. Larry
Masinter masterfully skewered this at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0208.html
but HTTPSubstrate-16 still lurks out there, and has for months.
While the IETF and W3C appear to agree about the value of MIME types,
there are a number of issues where registrations could in fact have a
significant impact on other aspects of Internet architecture, notably
fragment identifers because of their content-type-sensitive connections
to URI processing.
Roy Fielding's comments on XPointer seem to raise these questions quite
strongly:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2002OctDec/
0039.html
While I disagree with some of his points, these are discussions that I
would expect to see emerge within the RFC process on ietf-xml-mime or
elsewhere, and not necessarily discussions I think the W3C particularly
encourages.
It is possible that sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the draft address these
concerns:
----------------------------
3.3.1 Preliminary Community Review
In all cases notice of a potential media type registration may be
sent to the "ietf-types(_at_)iana(_dot_)org" mailing list for review. This
mailing list has been established for the purpose of reviewing
proposed media and access types.
The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and feedback
on the choice of type/subtype name, the unambiguity of the references
with respect to versions and external profiling information, and a
review of any interoperability or security considerations. The
submitter may submit a revised registration, or abandon the
registration completely, at any time.
3.3.2 IESG Approval
Media types registered in the standards tree MUST be approved by the
IESG prior to registration.
----------------------------
but I fear that discussion here has made these steps seem rather pro
forma.
It's up to the IETF to decide how much trust it has for the W3C and
other submitters, but I would ask that this discussion pause to consider
that some MIME registrations involve a good deal more than choosing a
name, filling out a form, and passing it along. "A review" is good; "a
substantive discussion" is better.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org