text/turtle

[Sean B. Palmer]

Hi Eric,

According to How to Register a Media Type for a W3C Specification [1],
the Registration Status for text/turtle, which the SPARQL Protocol REC
uses, is "?!?”. Does this mean that it was never submitted to the IESG
for consideration?

Strangely, the Turtle Team Submission says that it was submitted:

   This information that follows has been submitted to the IESG for
   review, approval, and registration with IANA.
– http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/#sec-mediaReg

But the "has been submitted" link is to this email:

http://www.w3.org/mid/20071218114549.GQ8244@...

Which is to ietf-types, not the IESG. So there's no evidence that the
steps described in [1] have been completed with respect to this media
type. Certainly the type has not been registered, because it doesn't
appear in the IANA's Media Types Assignments List [2].

You're listed as the contact for this in [1], so I thought I'd drop you a note!

Cheers,

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
[2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/

--
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/

[Eric Prud'hommeaux]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:01:09AM +0000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> According to How to Register a Media Type for a W3C Specification [1],
> the Registration Status for text/turtle, which the SPARQL Protocol REC
> uses, is "?!?”. Does this mean that it was never submitted to the IESG
> for consideration?

yeah, we had no media type by REC time.


> Strangely, the Turtle Team Submission says that it was submitted:
>
>    This information that follows has been submitted to the IESG for
>    review, approval, and registration with IANA.
> – http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/#sec-mediaReg
>
> But the "has been submitted" link is to this email:
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/20071218114549.GQ8244@...

when you go before the iesg, you have to show that there was
consensus, as indicated by a lack of grumbling on ietf-types. whenever
you submit a text/ media type, you get all sorts of grumbling. for
instance, "what's the realistic default character encoding?" "what's
your nasty media type doing next to text/plain anyways, it's not like
my grandmother's going to read it?"

i left all this on hold while the http1.1bis group endlessly cycles on
the former question (taking deployment into account, what's the default
media type?) .

as to the latter question, if you add up the arguments, there appears
to be no consensus over whether there should be any text/ type apart
from text/plain. i, of course, do, as evidenced by my clains of
text/{turtle,n3}, but i'd be happy for someone else to argue the same
side to add some credibility. want to gang up on them?

> Which is to ietf-types, not the IESG. So there's no evidence that the
> steps described in [1] have been completed with respect to this media
> type. Certainly the type has not been registered, because it doesn't
> appear in the IANA's Media Types Assignments List [2].
>
> You're listed as the contact for this in [1], so I thought I'd drop you a note!
>
> Cheers,
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
> [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/
>

--
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: [phone]

(eric@...)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.