Graham Klyne (GK@dial.pipex.com)
Tue, 03 Aug 1999 23:42:23 +0100
I have a small problem with this proposed MIME subtype registration.
The registration seems to be rather vague about whether it is to be the
definitive definition of 'audio/wav'; from section 1:
Because the Waveform Audio File format is not well-defined and has
not undergone a process of standardization, this document briefly
defines the format that will be supported by VPIM version 3. For
more detailed information, refer to the specification.
I think it is important that the audio/wav registration clearly defines
what constitutes audio/wav (either directly, or by reference). The
reference to VPIM V3 support merely confuses the issue. Remember, the MIME
registry is available to all applications, and should provide a general
basis for interoperability.
I think there are two possible cases here:
(1) the registration document does indeed completely define audio/wav, in
which case the references to Microsoft's platform SDK should be clearly
flagged as being non-definitive for this purpose (e.g. not offered as a
source of "more detailed information")
(2) the platform SDK provides the definitive specification, in which case a
proper citation to a publicly accessible document should be provided.
(Of the two cases here, I prefer the first because I think it's more
satisfactory if protocol standard specifications can stand without
reference to non-IETF documents.)
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Mar 19 2002 - 01:04:12 IDT