Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 09 November 2011 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 4CD2D21F8A95 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:01:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, 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 0l96ddBJm+BX for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:01:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDD021F86AA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.100] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA9I1YGQ002718 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:01:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4EBABEB4.2000108@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:01:34 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7E4D8B6B-5674-4423-B1D9-31956D8D564A@vpnc.org>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <4EB8E7FA.5030406@ninebynine.org> <4EBABEB4.2000108@gmx.de>
To: apps-discuss Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
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 18:01:43 -0000

On Nov 9, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-11-08 09:27, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> It's not clear to me what purpose would be served that cannot be handled
>> perfectly adequately by application/*
>> 
>> My understanding (or impression over the years) was that the top-level
>> MIME type was a kind of high-level dispatch indicator to a device
>> capable of rendering or otherwise presenting the broad kind of content,
>> with application/* serving for types that needed further processing
>> before they might meaningfully be considered for presentation
>> 
>> If I receive a font/* file, what might I do with it that is different
>> from any other application/* type of file?
>> ...
> 
> In HTTP:
> 
> 	Accept: font/*
> 
> (not sure whether it would be useful, but at least that's one thing you need a top level type for...)


The genesis for the current thread, I thought, was the websec WG's work on font-sniffing. "What might I do different" would be "do security checks", I believe. Folks who are more active on websec can answer this better.

--Paul Hoffman