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

Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@guppylake.com> Sun, 13 November 2011 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <nsb@guppylake.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 B4B4621F8B28 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:05:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 BSn-tPu4FA9B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.netnutz.com (server1.netnutz.com [72.233.90.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2BE21F8B27 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:05:25 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=guppylake.com; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer; b=U8dSHkJMurl05HHtmmpqBCA6UBhXGEe5uB6Xgdy/eZ5hE0lJ6pGMXyrvfIPNo+G+e1mNG6jwUrM1+XiQxFGx5itqd74I6fqbpJOdMz4QVFYC63ef1f7/x5FzTyvdrjgd;
Received: from [108.98.149.133] (helo=[192.168.0.197]) by server1.netnutz.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <nsb@guppylake.com>) id 1RPeQd-00042h-NB; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:05:17 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-898--697071665
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@guppylake.com>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF0F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:05:11 -0500
Message-Id: <0A2AA11A-0283-49F6-8B36-9DAF1F48C33D@guppylake.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF0F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server1.netnutz.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - guppylake.com
Cc: "gadams@xfsi.com" <gadams@xfsi.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, 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: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:05:26 -0000

On Nov 12, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> My conclusion from this discussion is that we should declare the MIME hierarchy closed to new top level types; we've only gotten very limited use and value out of the hierarchy, compared to the pain and difficulty (text/xml vs application/xml).

I strongly disagree.  I always expected such difficulties, but I believe a new top level type continues to make sense for certain relatively rare cases, and that "font" (or "fontformat" as per Tony's helpful suggestion) may well be one of them.  I think it would be imprudent to completely rule out any new types in the future, because I don't think we have any real idea what kinds of media human beings will some day invent.   I, at least, always saw "application" as a catch-all for things that didn't fit in any broader media buckets, not also as a catch-all for new possible new buckets.

But I also recognize that since there are few functional differences between "fontformat/xyz" and "application/font; format=xyz" and any number of other alternatives, this question may not have a definitive engineering-level answer.  That's another reason I'd just as soon stick to a more intuitive human notion of top-level media-types:  it's the only level at which it *ever* made sense.  If it's clear to a random civilian why jpeg and gif are in the same category, then the 'image' TLMT makes at least some sense.

On Nov 13, 2011, at 5:11 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Doesn't this also argue for "imageformat" and "videoformat"?

It probably would, if there had been anyone arguing for "image/cutebabies" or "image/dogsplayingpoker".  I think that people just more naturally assumed it was the format with "image," whereas there are two obvious ways to interpret "font" so a disambiguation might be helpful.  -- Nathaniel