Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Thu, 10 November 2011 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 AB2EB1F0C3D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:47:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.219, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 z0wqGbmHHm9J for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:47:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91ACB1F0C34 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:47:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id pAA1lOe7020331 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:47:24 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 6625_4307_f02f4bbe_0b3d_11e1_89fb_001d096c566a; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:47:24 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:60666) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S156B464> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:47:28 +0900
Message-ID: <4EBB2D1B.5010206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:47:07 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <4EB8E7FA.5030406@ninebynine.org> <4EB9D46B.8010808@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EB9D46B.8010808@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] 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: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:47:26 -0000

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.