Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

--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
> 