Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)

Mark Nottingham <> Mon, 14 November 2011 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC44A11E817C for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:46:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.907
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id neZB5O2fr0NG for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281C911E80D6 for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 884CA22E1EB; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:46:39 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:46:41 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Larry Masinter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: Roy Fielding <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:46:47 -0000


I was happy to see your positive response to this; what we're trying to do with happiana is aligned with the spirit of what Roy is proposing (as was said later in this thread, to reduce the cost of registration), if not the details (because that's where the devil lies, as pointed out by Frank and others).

Folks who haven't been following that list may want to have a quick look through:


On 13/11/2011, at 12:59 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> I'd like to discuss the proposal for MIME registrations from Roy Fielding in
> and the possibility that such changes should also apply to URI schemes.
> You can read Roy's rationale, which makes sense to me, but my summary is: 
> * Eliminate standards, vendor, personal trees distinction for MIME types (For URI schemes, eliminate distinction between provisional and permanent schemes)
> * ENCOURAGE vendors to ship with vendor-neutral short-named types regardless of whether they have been registered yet or not;
>   ENCOURAGE the public to register any names that they have seen in deployed software. (same for URI schemes)
> * DO NOT try to avoid duplicates 
> * EXPERT REVIEW for updates to existing registrations
> * Eliminate any IESG or consensus review requirement
> "There is absolutely no need to prevent name collisions in the registry itself because those collisions are irrelevant -- what matters is how the names are interpreted by recipients of messages."
> "There is absolutely no need to prevent people who are not the owners of a media type from registering that type without any prefixes."
> "The registry is not operable -- it is just documentation of how the Internet is operating, and it should reflect the reality of that operation even if that means we have multiple definitions per registered type."
> I find this perspective appealing, and can't find anything wrong with it except that it's a break with tradition. If you're at IETF this week and want to talk about it, find me.
> Larry 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list

Mark Nottingham