Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2011/11/09 10:16, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 11/8/2011 4:27 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> It's not clear to me what purpose would be served that cannot be handled
>> perfectly adequately by application/*

Then why do we have image/, audio/, and video/? application/ would be 
perfectly adequate for them, wouldn't it?

> Thanks for raising this point. On reflection, I seem to recall that
> adding top-level types is a Big Deal and not done.

Please don't use hearsay and rumors as arguments.

Of course adding a top-level type isn't something that's done every day, 
but the last one was added almost 15 years (model/, January 1997, RFC 
2077), and no next one (after font/) is lined up.

Also, RFC 2046 explicitly allows additions of top-level types (see the 
very end of 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Nov/0012.html):

    It should be noted that the list of media type values given here may
    be augmented in time, via the mechanisms described above, and that
    the set of subtypes is expected to grow substantially.

> Your question points to the alternative that constitutes a less
> disruptive challenge to the current proposal.

In what sense is adding a font/ top-level type "disruptive"?

Regards,   Martin.