thank you Bjoern, Le 07-oct.-09 à 16:14, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit :
In this specification draft, one can find three registrations for media-types related to MathML in the appendix B: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-MathML3-20090924/appendixb.htmlThe first problem I have with this is that there is no word on what exactly the various types are for, like if there are any restrictions on what should be in a mathml-content+xml vs a mathml-presentation+xml document, or if the types can be used with MathML 2.0.
that is defined in chapter 6: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-MathML3-20090924/chapter6.html#encoding-names should it be repeated in our appendix hence in this registration then?
As per RFC 3023, the charset definition and encoding considerations should be referenced as follows, which the proposals fails to do: Registrations for new XML-based media types under top-level types other than "text" SHOULD, in specifying the charset parameter and encoding considerations, define them as: "Same as [charset parameter / encoding considerations] of application/xml as specified in RFC 3023."
I can change this.Wouldn't it be wishable to reference draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03 instead?
Does anyone know when it'd be authoritative.
The security considerations are missing (in fact the specification as a whole does not have a security considerations section either).
Can you suggest something?MathML entities exchanged on the web have the same risks as any document that could contain relative references. Is this the kind of sentence that could be there?
I believe the text you have under "interoperability considerations" is misplaced there in all three cases.
misplaced like it's wrongly formulated? Formatted?
I note that under "Applications that use this media type" you have "(todo)". Going to Last Call with "todo" markers left is not a good practise. I note that the purpose of this field is to give a general idea of what kind of applications use it, not to list individual software products.
thanks, will do.
Under "Person & email address to contact for further information" the proposal fails to properly separate name and email address, use something like "Name <address>" instead.
this appears clear
I do not think having a generic W3C / W3C Webmaster combination there is a good practise.
Should there be an email? (there's one three lines above) Should there be a group? That is easy to add. paul
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature