Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 09 November 2011 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 071B311E80A1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:07:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.269
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 n63bFbphVY+v for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:07:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9312F11E80AB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:07:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ROFN3-00002L-SD; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:07:46 -0500
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:07:45 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <FFB42B3B968A7202317BD55C@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <56B202FE-ED81-4C36-AB4C-0A809F51D009@standardstrack.com>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <24FBF40353ABCC3A4F15E82B@PST.JCK.COM> <56B202FE-ED81-4C36-AB4C-0A809F51D009@standardstrack.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:07:48 -0000

--On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 16:00 -0500 Eric Burger
<eburger@standardstrack.com> wrote:

> Sounds like a call for a BOF.

Only if we can get some serious typographic folks there.
Otherwise, I'd personally prefer to see a few I-Ds.  Since there
is no change of getting a BOF together before next week, some
documents on which the community could base decisions would have
a chance of being a lot faster, too.

best,
   john

 
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 8:06 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> The links you gave to earlier messages don't work, but I don't
>> recall "killing" a font proposal.  See inline below.
>...
>> I was, and remain, very hesitant about creating new top-level
>> types.  As others have noted, it is a big deal.  There are
>> several reasons for that but at least one important one is
>> that the model for what an application is expected to do when
>> it encounters an unknown top-level type is not, IMO, really
>> well sorted out.  One cannot do much of anything (in that
>> sense, it isn't much different from an application/ subtype),
>> but it isn't clear how one should present that fact to a user
>> who doesn't have much understanding or vocabulary about what
>> is going on at the content-type level.
>...
>> Recommendation to those who want this:  Work on a few subtype
>> definitions.  Sort the details, such as what parameters are
>> needed, out with the typographic community.  Examine the use
>> cases.   The would would need to be done --and would be almost
>> the same-- for a subtype of application/ or a subtype of
>> font/. With those tentative subtype descriptions in hand, the
>> rest of us will be a lot more able to identify commonalities
>> and to participate in an evaluation of whether a top-level
>> type is really justified.
>> 
>> best,
>>   john
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>