Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

On 2011/11/13 9:57, Tony Hansen wrote:

> I've seen several hints of wanting to do web Accept-style queries along
> the line of
>
> Accept: font/arial, font/comicsans

Where did you see that?

> What is it that is really desired?
>
> While this sounds like it might be a nice capability,

It's a nice capability, but it's something for search engines, not for 
content negotiation.

> it really doesn't
> agree with what media types are all about.

Of course not.

> The Arial font can be
> described in many different font file formats.
>
> Media types are more for describing things like:
> MMMM/datafork-truetype
> MMMM/intellifont
> MMMM/postscriptfont
> MMMM/truedocfont
> MMMM/truetype
> MMMM/webopenfont
>
> (where MMMM is some prefix yet to be determined), within which you can
> have a description of many different fonts, including Arial and ComicSans.
>
> =======
>
> *IF* we were to define a top-level media type, I do *not* think it
> should be named "font", but instead should name it "fontformat" or
> something like that. I think naming it "font" just leads people to have
> false expectations.

I don't think so. At least once there are a few registrations, things 
should be clear. As Julian pointed out, it hasn't be a problem for 
image/, video/, ...

Regards,    Martin.

> =======
>
> I notice that if "application" were used for font format file names,
> some of the font format names would need to include the word "font" as
> part of the name. For example, "application/postscript" can not be used
> for the font format defined in the postscript standard. Instead, it
> would have to be "application/postscriptfont". This *could* be taken an
> argument for using "fontformat" as a top level type, as in
> "fontformat/postscript". However, I don't find it a convincing argument
> by itself.
>
> Tony Hansen
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss