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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 9D21111E8330 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:31:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 8yQv01ONKpMq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC2A11E8323 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8EWMME3OG0025HE@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8DV7Q11A800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01O8EWMK2T8E00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:10:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:09:18 +0800" <4EC0CCAE.5070402@stpeter.im>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <24FBF40353ABCC3A4F15E82B@PST.JCK.COM> <4EBB2B83.3060901@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88AB2EM7S00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBBB0EE.8050502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88YVG6MQY00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBCCE76.2090807@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8AM6GDT5000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC0CCAE.5070402@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] type name suffixes (was: Re: 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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:31:30 -0000

> 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