Scripting Media Types

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Bruce Lilly wrote:
>You might say something like "there exist some non-MIME-compliant
>applications that generate unregistered, non-private-use labels
>such as 'text/javascript'  ...  such use is clearly not interoperable".

Would such a statement address your concerns in this regard, or do you
mean wording such as "support" as you've mentioned, "the media type
application/ecmascript", etc. should still be replaced even if I adopt
this proposal?

>A scripting or programming language implies an interpreter or
>compiler.  Implementers need a specification in order to
>implement interpreters and/or compilers (validating parsers,
>etc.).  Now in some cases, a specification is not publicly
>available (e.g. for proprietary formats such as application/msword),
>but that doesn't appear to apply in this case.

But why does that require the reference to be normative rather than
informative?

>I believe the registration procedure notes that IESG (not IETF) may
>assign change control under some circumstances.  Also, IETF is a
>large, vaguely-defined body consisting of many individuals, numerous
>working groups, etc.  The IESG, on the other hand, is a clearly-defined
>group which makes decisions based on parliamentary procedures, directs
>IANA and the RFC Editor, etc., with a public record of their meetings
>and decisions. See RFCs 3160, 2026, 2418.

True, but then it makes little sense for the other cited RFCs to refer
to the IETF as change controller; I will seek the IESG's advice on this
matter, I don't have strong feelings either way as long as new RFCs may
update the registration.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern at hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/