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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Sat, 19 November 2011 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 48CCD21F8906 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:44:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 5i2xpoU5GInl for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF2C21F88B6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [64.104.46.217]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F2FF4214E; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:50:46 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4EC75E54.4010208@stpeter.im>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:44:20 +0900
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DAC608@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC60870.4080805@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4EC60870.4080805@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "gadams@xfsi.com Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
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: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:44:25 -0000

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/