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(_at_)it(_dot_)aoyama(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp
_______________________________________________
ietf-types mailing list
ietf-types(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types