Re: [apps-discuss] Content Types for Fonts?

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>* Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>  
>
>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff-02.txt    
>>
>>AFAIK fonts don't have registered mime/content types, so browsers
>>already just use sniffing algorithms for them.
>>And without them having a registered content/mime type, it's kind of a
>>flawed logic to add this to the draft for mime sniffing.
>>    
>>
>
>The draft refers to application/x-rar-compressed, application/x-gzip,
>unknown/unknown, application/unknown, application/rss+xml, image/webp,
>video/webm. They are all unregistered, and in case of the first two,
>cannot be registered without changing BCP 13.
>
Right.

>Are those a problem as-well?
>
Yes.

>>On the other hand it might make sense to add content types for fonts to
>>the IANA registry?
>>http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/index.html
>>
>>Has that ever come up? Or are they already registered and I missed them?
>>Or is this a bad idea?    
>>
>
>I don't think there is anything special about fonts that would make
>that a bad idea compared to other kinds of resources. There has been
>some interest in this and there have been some efforts, for example,
><http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-singer-font-mime-00>, but as far
>as I am aware nobody has gone so far as to ask the IESG to actually
>approve a font media type.
>  
>
I don't see any immediate problem with registering fonts.

>(I think it might be best for the Applications Area Working Group to
>draw up a list of common data formats with unregistered media types
>and make a bulk specification that contains the absolute minimum to
>register them all.
>
That is a fine idea, but who would volunteer to write such a spec?

>If it were to do so, throwing in a couple of font
>types should be no problem.)
>  
>