[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Wrong link in the spec
Hello Rob, Indeed thanks for the pointers. Let me ask you then a question so that we are fully briefed on this point. What legal or regulatory status does an erratum/a have for the ISO? The way I understand this, the errata was already pushed and so whatever dead link we are talking about here has been corrected. The changes have already permeated outside of the OASIS, which is a good thing. Now does the ISO have a specific process -I imagine it does- that would take some time in order to accept and integrate an errata? Thanks, Charles. Le Sun, 4 Aug 2013 13:05:38 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org a écrit : > Another approach is to report this to ISI (or IANA), that they are > redirecting > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types > to http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types when it > should redirect to http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types. > > The URL we quote was correct originally. You see it used in other > places, in books: > > http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/webprog/webnut/ch17_05.htm > > in IETF drafts: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-02 > > and in published W3C Notes: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/odrl/ > > So it would help more than just us if the redirect was fixed. > > In general link decay on the web happens. This will not change. The > best we can do is link to the most authoritative page at the time, > and update the link when it changes. Adopters of standards have a > few other options, including downloading copies of any referenced > pages and maintaining them in a local repository, as insurance > against link Armageddon. Or they could contact OASIS (or ISO/IEC > JTC1) if they had concerns. Or they could consult a domain expert on > the subject who would quickly let them know that the IANA registry of > content types is well-known in the industry, non-controversial and > has nothing to do with the openness of a standard. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > <email@example.com> wrote on 08/03/2013 07:36:32 AM: > > > From: "Charles-H. Schulz" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > To: "'ODF TC List '" <email@example.com> > > Date: 08/03/2013 07:33 AM > > Subject: [office] Wrong link in the spec > > Sent by: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > > Hello, > > > > It has been brought to the attention of the Document Foundation as > > well as other European entities that the European Commission has > > labeled the ODF standard "not open" and problematic in one of its > > official publications. > > > > Inquiries on this matter has led us to receive the following answer > > from the European Commission: That there's a dead link in the > > specification at the section 17.7.3 : > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types > > > > My question is twofold: what correction could be made to this > > deadlink (apart from its obvious removal) and how long would the > > publication of an erratum take? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Charles-H. Schulz > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC > > that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in > > OASIS at: > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Associé / Partner, Ars Aperta.