Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)

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

On 11/18/11 4:25 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> Hello Larry,
> 
> On 2011/11/18 10:29, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I think any definition of a new top level type should come with some
>> use cases, some protocol or operation, which is more functional,
>> reliable, better, improved, useful,.
> 
> I don't see anything like this for image/, video/, or audio/ in the
> original documents. They just started with the assumption that these are
> not the same media, so they shouldn't be in the main top-level type.
> What's the problem with applying this same argument to font/? What will
> stop working, or otherwise produce undesired consequences, if we
> introduce font/?
> 
> 
>> #  even if it involves re-registering some of the existing subtypes
>> under the new font/* tree.
>>
>> Types with two names seem like more of a problem, and re-registering
>> existing types with a potentially long tail of overlapping use
>> problematic.
> 
> It's definitely not optimal. It would have been better to register these
> under font/ much earlier. We can still learn from that experience.
> 
> 
>> #  I brought this up for discussion at today's conference call with
>> W3C WebFonts WG, and the general opinion was that having font/* type
>> registered would still be a good thing for the industry.
>>
>> I think we still need at least one concrete practical use case. Just
>> asking in the abstract won't necessarily get you a good answer.
> 
> I don't think we need to continue to press for concrete, practical,
> fail-safe, everybody-will-be-satisfied use cases. At some point, not
> everybody will be convinced of the absolute need of font/. But that's
> fine. The main point is that those who think having font/ is useful can
> use it.

Agreed. So, who holds the pen on writing an I-D?

Peter

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