Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type 'structure': when to go top-level?

Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@guppylake.com> Thu, 10 November 2011 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <nsb@guppylake.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5D421F84AC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:03:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a9a6HJCmjzWb for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.netnutz.com (server1.netnutz.com [72.233.90.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADD521F8ACC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:03:01 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=guppylake.com; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer; b=A3dEE7oohfdaogPsiIZz2sh7LX35h+NTA+1hjPT+0IRL3uNyPTvge41fVDVMay1i30r8+W0i5WBg9mcuzI8UqZA9IcBDuCsnaYXA2YcIGpb6dZtSF2utPAlg2CtWlOqD;
Received: from 174-158-149-172.pools.spcsdns.net ([174.158.149.172] helo=[192.168.0.197]) by server1.netnutz.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <nsb@guppylake.com>) id 1ROVDR-0007IU-BW; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:03:01 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-618--970835550
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@guppylake.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EBB7660.6040904@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:02:27 -0500
Message-Id: <678FC35A-1730-48BE-A0F2-152E5D49BC10@guppylake.com>
References: <4EBB3CFC.5050608@dcrocker.net> <4EBB5310.6080103@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAC4RtVBNL_nTCwBsMQpEKS9kXUF7aj9yEstef7yrzwi8qYAQDg@mail.gmail.com> <4EBB7660.6040904@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server1.netnutz.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - guppylake.com
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type 'structure': when to go top-level?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:03:02 -0000

One other pragmatic condition might indicate the desirability of a top-level type:  the possibility of defining a reasonable default behavior for unrecognized subtypes.

Thus, for text/*, it is sometimes reasonable to just show users the raw text.  For image/* with an unrecognized subtype, it is sometimes reasonable to invoke a "smarter" program like xv.  For multipart/* you can at least find the parts, even if you're not sure what to do with them.  For video/* you  might choose to reject or strip out the data in a resource-challenged environment.  And I suspect this argues in favor of "font" as a TLCT, as the mail code may often be able to pass the data on to a "smarter" font engine.

I believe this is related, but not identical, to #1 and #2 below.  -- Nathaniel


On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:59 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>     So, I think this leaves guidance in favor of a new top-level content-type if one or more of the following apply:
> 
>     1.  Strong semantic relationship among the sub-types
> 
>     2.  Likelihood of some common code for the set of sub-types
> 
>     3.  Expectation that implementors will benefit from easily discovering the current set of sub-types in the registry.
> 
> 
> Does this summarize the guidance that should be offered for justifying a new TLCT?