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

"Levantovsky, Vladimir" <> Wed, 16 November 2011 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A2321F9016 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:01:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.242
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SWkOca+Ak6pa for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7971F0C45 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:01:39 PST
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:01:21 -0500
From: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:01:20 -0500
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
Thread-Index: AcykBdaNeVMOyBtlS4CbjFC4bg4jqAAkwQXQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Chris Lilley <>, Ned Freed <>, David Singer <>, "" <>, " Adams" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:01:40 -0000

Adding Chris Lilley from W3C

On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:17 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 11/16/11 7:22 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> > However, the sentiments expressed at the time were very similar to
> > this discussion; I was told that applying for a new top-level type
> > was "A BIG NO-NO", that prior attempts to register font/* failed, and
> > that unless I am willing to dedicate significant part of my life to
> > this activity (i.e. applying and lobbying for a new top-level "font"
> > type) the effort would most likely get us nowhere.
> Perhaps I am mistaken, but I read the discussion differently: I see an
> openness to registering font/* now.

Yes. I guess I should've been more specific and should have said that the sentiments expressed few years ago were similar to what was mentioned as part of this discussion (or as quoted from prior discussions). I do see a much more open-minded position to registering font/* now - the question is whether there is still a utility value left in doing this (since we already have quite a few font-* subtypes registered under the application/* tree.

My personal opinion is that registering font/* type still makes a lot of sense and this is something we need to do, even if it involves re-registering some of the existing subtypes under the new font/* tree. 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.

Thank you,