Re: [apps-discuss] type name suffixes

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 11/15/11 6:10 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> On 11/12/11 4:46 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> >> On 2011/11/11 1:23, Ned Freed wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> On 2011/11/10 13:06, Ned Freed wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> > In practice the issue of what to register where has never been
>> much
>> >> >> of a
>> >> >> > problem. Speaking now as media types reviewer, I have not
>> >> infrequently
>> >> >> > pushed
>> >> >> > back on top-level type choices, usually successfully and always
>> >> >> amicably.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Do you know of any examples? This could help Dave with the general
>> >> list
>> >> >> of criteria that he wants to develop.
>> >> >
>> >> > I can't get into specifics without talking about the content of
>> >> > preliminary registration requests, which I try not to do. I can say
>> >> that
>> >> > the most common one has been someone asking for application when
>> >> image or
>> >> > video would be more appropriate.
>> >> >
>> >> > The most common name change I request, however, is the addition of
>> >> +xml.
>> >
>> >> Okay. This is about change from one existing top-level type to
>> another,
>> >> and about tweaking the minor type name with a suffix.
>> >
>> > Understood. Both things happen. As I said, the most common top level
>> change
>> > is from application to image or video. Next up would probably moves
>> from
>> > text to application, but come to think of it I haven't have one of
>> those
>> > in a while.
>> >
>> >> Out of the context
>> >> of the discussion, I thought that you were speaking about new
>> top-level
>> >> types when you wrote "I have not infrequently pushed back on top-level
>> >> type choices", but now I see that that's not a necessary
>> interpretation.
>> >
>> > I was simply noting that the most common change isn't a top-level
>> > change, but
>> > rather the addition of +xml. My apologies if that was confusing.
> 
>> I notice that draft-freed-media-type-regs-01 talked about structured
>> type name suffixes (e.g., "+xml") and calls for creation of a registry
>> for such suffixes. Ned, do you have thoughts on how people can more
>> easily define such suffixes, before draft-freed-media-type-regs (or
>> something like it) is approved?
> 
> Well, right now there is no process. RFC 4288 has some weasel-words about
> "using +sufffixes with care", so as reviewer that's what I do - I've
> allowed
> types with +json and +wbxml, I believe, but given the language I haven't
> felt
> comfortable asking people to add anything other than +xml to types that
> had no suffx.
> 
> I don't recall pushing back on any suffix usage, but I may have - I've
> reviewed
> a lot of types!
> 
>> The reason I ask is that I've had a few
>> people ask me about this topic recently.
> 
> Well, the preferable thing would be to get the process Tony defined that I
> included in 4288bis approved. Absent that, the rule is more or less that
> you
> can use a suffix if you like and if it seems to make sense.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the right place to define
this more carefully is 4288bis. In the meantime, let's say that someone
wants to register "application/foo+bar" -- do we feel that they need to
describe the "+bar" suffix in a separate specification, or can they
simply go ahead and use the suffix in the I-D that registers the "foo"
application, perhaps along with some explanatory text?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/