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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 14 November 2011 22:10 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 00D9A11E824F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:10:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.704
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_RECV_IP_061228=0.895, 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 BaORZyGDdhqu for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:10:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABC211E820F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:10:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [61.230.53.171]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4194F4214E; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:16:31 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4EC191C9.2070609@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:10:17 +0800
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: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF0F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC0C2C8.2010500@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8EV98HXC800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01O8EV98HXC800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "gadams@xfsi.com" <gadams@xfsi.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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:10:29 -0000

On 11/15/11 5:44 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> On 2011/11/13 5:25, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> > I see no use case for why having font/opentype is any better than
>> application/opentype
>
>> It's just fine if you, and some others, don't see it. Does that mean
>> that you have to fight against it? You haven't shown, even less
>> mentioned, any problem for font/opentype.
>
> Good point. I have no skin in this particular game - aside from slightly
> complicating the media review process I have no personal need for
> font/*. But
> if there's a constituency this type helps, I'm all for it.

I think the ball is now in the court of those who think they might want 
to register font/ -- any volunteers? I will also ping our W3C friends to 
see if someone active there has energy to work on this.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/