<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Consolas, monospace" size="2">
<div>I noticed that this response is still listed as FURTHER CONSIDERATION REQUIRED. It appears from the mail thread that we're relatively close to closing on this one and so I was hoping we could make a few decisions about it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The first question is of scope: do we change all 402 instances of "content type" as Murata-san identified, or do we scope our changes to the Terms and Definitions ( T&W) section of the standard. I propose that we limit our response to the T&D section
of the standard.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The next question is, if we agree with the current scope, what are the exact changes for the T&D section? I propose that we add a note regarding our abuse to the existing content type definition; I further propose that we add a new term called “media
type” to the T&D section. Here is the specific changes I’m proposing:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><b>Part 1, </b><b>§</b><b>4</b><b> Updates</b></div>
<div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="2"><b>content type</b> — Describes the content stored in a part. Content types define a media type, a subtype, and an optional set of parameters, as defined in RFC 2616. <font color="#0000FF"><u>Strictly speaking,
many instances where content type is used throughout the standard, a more correct description would be </u></font><font color="#0000FF"><u>“</u></font><font color="#0000FF"><u>media type.</u></font><font color="#0000FF"><u>”</u></font> </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><b>Part 1, </b><b>§</b><b>4</b><b> </b><b>Additions</b></div>
<div><font color="#0000FF"><u><b>media type</b></u><u> </u><u>–</u><u> Describes </u><u>the content stored in a part, as defined in RFC 2616.</u></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>To be completely honest, I don’t think we need to make either of these changes as I don’t believe that they will have any impact on vendors ability to implement the standard, nor their ability to implement interoperable solutions. That said, I understand
that some folks in WG4 believe that this is an important issue. My motivation at this point is to generate consensus on this defect report response and move it along.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for listening. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>shawn</div>
<div> </div>
<div>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [<a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or..jp">mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</a>]
<br>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 6:55 PM<br>
To: e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org<br>
Subject: Re: DR-09-0032 (was Re: DR-09-0032 and DR-09-0034)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>IMHO, the scope of this issue is the prose *everywhere* in ISO/IEC 29500</div>
<div>rather than the prose in the Terms and Definitions section. Parts 1, 2,</div>
<div>and 4 uses "content type" 199, 186, and 17 times.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If we are going to publish a reprint, I would like to change all these</div>
<div>occurrences. If not, I can live with (1) replacing "content type"</div>
<div>by "media type" in the Terms and Definitions section, and (2) adding</div>
<div>a note about our abuse.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--</div>
<div>MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</font>
</body>
</html>