Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)

Larry Masinter <> Fri, 18 November 2011 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0DF11E80C0 for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:30:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.311
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z28jp-Q6LEAQ for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383F111E80BE for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:30:47 PST
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id pAI1U3Zc004929; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id pAI1U25S020805; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:30:02 -0800
From: Larry Masinter <>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <>, Peter Saint-Andre <>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:29:58 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
Thread-Index: AcylkZDfSneCQizjQ4mlYmG4Ya4h4w==
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Chris Lilley <>, Ned Freed <>, David Singer <>, "" <>, " Adams" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:30:49 -0000

# My personal opinion is that registering font/* type still makes a lot of sense and this is something we need to do

I think any definition of a new top level type should come with some use cases, some protocol or operation, which is more functional, reliable, better, improved, useful,.

#  even if it involves re-registering some of the existing subtypes under the new font/* tree.

Types with two names seem like more of a problem, and re-registering existing types with a potentially long tail of overlapping use problematic.

#  I brought this up for discussion at today's conference call with W3C WebFonts WG, and the general opinion was that having font/* type registered would still be a good thing for the industry.

I think we still need at least one concrete practical use case. Just asking in the abstract won't necessarily get you a good answer.

David Singer:
# I think that it's way overdue for us to work out whether everything [not [image | video | audio]] should be application, and if not, why not.

Everything else should be "application" unless there's a good reason for it.   For text/*, we at least had some hope of common "charset" parameters having some meaning. For image/*, there's at least the use case of a HTTP "accept: image/*" header (although I'm not sure how useful that is, in practice.).

But I'm having trouble imagining a use case for "font/*", even in the context of sniffing.