On Nov 3, 2003, at 12:03 PM, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
In any case, aside from some delays I see no indication that things
were handled "informally" here.
Putting aside the delays, I was specifically referring to:
- The lack of clarity in the process for registering media types
leading to ad hoc administration. If draft-freed-mime-p4-04 is adopted,
this concern will be somewhat mitigated.
- Your insistence that Harold's note in the datatracker [1] served as
adequate notice that the draft was rejected, even though he is not the
responsible A-D, and even though the document was still listed as
"publication requested."
> My recommendation to future W3C WGs that need to register media
types
> would be to co-ordinate with the W3C liaison to get a periodic
update
> of their Drafts' status from the IESG (anecdotal evidence shows that
> individual queries to members of the IESG are often not responded
to).
This is precisely what the datatracker is for.
And I recommended that the W3C use more direct channels, because it's
been demonstrated that the datatracker isn't reliable, and you've
stated that it's the preferred method of communication to draft
authors.
Regards,
1.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?
command=view_id&dTag=8198&rfc_flag=0> see comment on 9-11-03 (result of
a POST, so it can't be linked).