On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:51:10PM -0400, John Stracke wrote:
Why would the process be any different for the W3C than for anybody else? It
is perfectly possible to have a MIME registration RFC that references a
non-IETF document for the actual syntax of the format. For example, see
RFC-3240.
Some W3C groups are trying to follow a finding[1] of the W3C's Technical
Architecture Group[2], to include the media type registration form
(for an IETF tree media type) within their specifications[3].
The process will have to be a little different if W3C working groups
are to follow that finding. However, that *does not* mean that we are
trying to subvert the IESG review required for IETF tree media types.
We want to work together to figure out how best to tweak the process
while respecting the important parts of the existing process.
FWIW, one idea I've had is to publish the registration form as an I-D
to get IESG approval, but with explicit intent of *not* taking it to
RFC, and instead pasting the IESG-approved text verbatim into the
relevant W3C spec.
Thanks.
BTW, I'm only speaking for myself, not for the W3C or any W3C working
group. So that suggestion is mine and mine alone - if it's wildly
disrespectful of the existing process, kindly disregard. 8-)
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
MB
--
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com