DR-09-0032 (was Re: DR-09-0032 and DR-09-0034)

Shawn Villaron shawnv at exchange.microsoft.com
Tue Feb 17 03:12:58 CET 2009

Great.  Does everyone agree with Murata-san that this issue's scope is limited to the prose in the Terms and Definitions section?  I realize that we can't make a definitive decision in email, but if we learned that no one objected to this scoping, we could make more progress in the run-up to Prague ....

Do we have a preference for the prose change itself?  For example, do we leave content type as-is and then add another term called media type and explain the relationship between the two?

And regarding the highlighted sentence, I was trying to imply we don't need to do anything; rather, I was trying to convey that this issue was considered earlier in the standard evolution and was decided to leave it as-is.  Again, doesn't mean we can't make a change to the T&D section ...


-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:20 PM
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR-09-0032 (was Re: DR-09-0032 and DR-09-0034)

I would like to change prose and do not change file names, element names, attribute names, or any names appearing in schemas.  I even believe that this is what MIME and HTTP have done.  In these specs, the name of the field is "content-type" while what is specified in this field is called media types in prose.

I do not think that the sentence you highlighted gives us a license to use different names when other standardization organizations have established the appropriate terminology.


MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT at asahi-net.or.jp>

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list