[apps-discuss] type name suffixes (was: Re: font/*)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 14 November 2011 08:09 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D39011E8277 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:09:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.617, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2a9reQ8fU688 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B2F11E8275 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-13ac.meeting.ietf.org (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 698CA404FF; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:15:32 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4EC0CCAE.5070402@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:09:18 +0800
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <24FBF40353ABCC3A4F15E82B@PST.JCK.COM> <4EBB2B83.3060901@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88AB2EM7S00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBBB0EE.8050502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88YVG6MQY00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBCCE76.2090807@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8AM6GDT5000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01O8AM6GDT5000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] type name suffixes (was: Re: 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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:09:25 -0000

On 11/12/11 4:46 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> On 2011/11/11 1:23, Ned Freed wrote:
>> >> On 2011/11/10 13:06, Ned Freed wrote:
>> >> > In practice the issue of what to register where has never been much
>> >> of a
>> >> > problem. Speaking now as media types reviewer, I have not
>> infrequently
>> >> > pushed
>> >> > back on top-level type choices, usually successfully and always
>> >> amicably.
>> >
>> >> Do you know of any examples? This could help Dave with the general
>> list
>> >> of criteria that he wants to develop.
>> >
>> > I can't get into specifics without talking about the content of
>> > preliminary registration requests, which I try not to do. I can say
>> that
>> > the most common one has been someone asking for application when
>> image or
>> > video would be more appropriate.
>> >
>> > The most common name change I request, however, is the addition of
>> +xml.
>> Okay. This is about change from one existing top-level type to another,
>> and about tweaking the minor type name with a suffix.
> Understood. Both things happen. As I said, the most common top level change
> is from application to image or video. Next up would probably moves from
> text to application, but come to think of it I haven't have one of those
> in a while.
>> Out of the context
>> of the discussion, I thought that you were speaking about new top-level
>> types when you wrote "I have not infrequently pushed back on top-level
>> type choices", but now I see that that's not a necessary interpretation.
> I was simply noting that the most common change isn't a top-level
> change, but
> rather the addition of +xml. My apologies if that was confusing.

I notice that draft-freed-media-type-regs-01 talked about structured 
type name suffixes (e.g., "+xml") and calls for creation of a registry 
for such suffixes. Ned, do you have thoughts on how people can more 
easily define such suffixes, before draft-freed-media-type-regs (or 
something like it) is approved? The reason I ask is that I've had a few 
people ask me about this topic recently.



Peter Saint-Andre