* 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@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/