Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Sun, 13 November 2011 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
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 07FBE21F87E2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:30:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 eA3rAJe1dvBe for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4A721F85FF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:30:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1321194629!878414!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.3.6; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 9021 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2011 14:30:29 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-12.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Nov 2011 14:30:29 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pADEUv8Y029466 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:30:57 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pADEUqfG029376 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:30:53 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pADEUOIn002664 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:30:24 -0500
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pADEUKoF002443 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:30:22 -0500
Received: from [135.70.107.72] (vpn-135-70-107-72.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.107.72]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20111113142920gw100e4l7ge> (Authid: tony); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:29:25 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.107.72]
Message-ID: <4EBFD473.1080804@att.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:30:11 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <555BA718-A5FA-4111-9A8B-1DE99921CCE2@standardstrack.com> <60D34A5D-985C-4C97-A4FA-3CBF5CD31FCF@mnot.net> <4EB9D49C.5010100@it.aoyama.ac.jp><4EBB2FEA.5060602@dcrocker.net> <4EBB50F4.7020501@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EBB54E0.9090005@dcrocker.net> <00bb01cc9f87$ff24b9a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4EBBABC1.1010101@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <003201cca12e$1f35f860$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4EBF15DD.4050801@att.com> <4EBF97CF.6030204@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4EBF97CF.6030204@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
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: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:30:32 -0000

Certainly not. My argument is that "font" is a bad name because of its 
overloaded connotations -- I'm not arguing *for* any particular 
replacement for it. Any of "fontformat", "fontdl", and others would be 
better than just "font".

     Tony Hansen

On 11/13/2011 5:11 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-11-13 01:57, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> ...
>> *IF* we were to define a top-level media type, I do *not* think it
>> should be named "font", but instead should name it "fontformat" or
>> something like that. I think naming it "font" just leads people to have
>> false expectations.
>> ...
>
> Doesn't this also argue for "imageformat" and "videoformat"?
>
> Best regards, Julian