Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appswg-xdash-03

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, March 10, 2012 12:48 -0600 Pete Resnick
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/10/12 12:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>> On 3/10/2012 10:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> However, an
>>> interpretation of Dave's statement could extend to a
>>> prohibition, not only on faceted or hierarchical names but on
>>> the "+xml" arrangements and the like that we've used in media
>>> types.
>> 
>> Unless I've entirely misunderstood the use of that qualifier,
>> it  indicates an encoding framework for the labeled data, not
>> it's 'status'.
> 
> Ah! That would be a lovely distinction to make in the
> introduction in so many words: It's when a piece of the name
> is used to indicate a *status* rather than a *type* that
> presents the problem. That would be a great clarification.

Sure.  Except that, while "experimental" or "private use" are
examples of "status", "extension" is a type.  And that, I
believe, takes us back to square one.

    john