Re: [apps-discuss] type name suffixes (was: Re: font/*)

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On 11/12/11 4:46 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> On 2011/11/11 1:23, Ned Freed wrote:
> >
> >> >> On 2011/11/10 13:06, Ned Freed wrote:
> >
> >> >> > In practice the issue of what to register where has never been much
> >> >> of a
> >> >> > problem. Speaking now as media types reviewer, I have not
> >> infrequently
> >> >> > pushed
> >> >> > back on top-level type choices, usually successfully and always
> >> >> amicably.
> >> >
> >> >> Do you know of any examples? This could help Dave with the general
> >> list
> >> >> of criteria that he wants to develop.
> >> >
> >> > I can't get into specifics without talking about the content of
> >> > preliminary registration requests, which I try not to do. I can say
> >> that
> >> > the most common one has been someone asking for application when
> >> image or
> >> > video would be more appropriate.
> >> >
> >> > The most common name change I request, however, is the addition of
> >> +xml.
> >
> >> Okay. This is about change from one existing top-level type to another,
> >> and about tweaking the minor type name with a suffix.
> >
> > Understood. Both things happen. As I said, the most common top level change
> > is from application to image or video. Next up would probably moves from
> > text to application, but come to think of it I haven't have one of those
> > in a while.
> >
> >> Out of the context
> >> of the discussion, I thought that you were speaking about new top-level
> >> types when you wrote "I have not infrequently pushed back on top-level
> >> type choices", but now I see that that's not a necessary interpretation.
> >
> > I was simply noting that the most common change isn't a top-level
> > change, but
> > rather the addition of +xml. My apologies if that was confusing.

> I notice that draft-freed-media-type-regs-01 talked about structured
> type name suffixes (e.g., "+xml") and calls for creation of a registry
> for such suffixes. Ned, do you have thoughts on how people can more
> easily define such suffixes, before draft-freed-media-type-regs (or
> something like it) is approved?

Well, right now there is no process. RFC 4288 has some weasel-words about
"using +sufffixes with care", so as reviewer that's what I do - I've allowed
types with +json and +wbxml, I believe, but given the language I haven't felt
comfortable asking people to add anything other than +xml to types that
had no suffx.

I don't recall pushing back on any suffix usage, but I may have - I've reviewed
a lot of types!

> The reason I ask is that I've had a few
> people ask me about this topic recently.

Well, the preferable thing would be to get the process Tony defined that I
included in 4288bis approved. Absent that, the rule is more or less that you
can use a suffix if you like and if it seems to make sense.

				Ned