Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type 'structure': when to go top-level?

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 10 November 2011 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
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 4D05021F84DC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:33:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.941
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.941 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 Ncbr69MzlDSR for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC25221F84D7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnr4 with SMTP id r4so1378640ggn.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:33:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FARLalTd3jShBCbccmUfFepqON1qUX0vw6HMCWyAueM=; b=JNJuZJ5BXM0clO/9pecw0QMCmDVVYNY4KR+pNF4mLG/zbAfkkn61pXaCpiaQSbpH6q FPso+qLgdfIU7VcAqHc4K0qZQWxVOqU63Pbeb1EUa/0kXQXGJLsc6XofICqqThq7OBZw yq7JAZdB+53kvN3O4UnGgtYj6/dJw28izG3rY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.146.159.5 with SMTP id h5mr2946159yae.1.1320917607238; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.146.250.14 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:33:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EBB7660.6040904@dcrocker.net>
References: <4EBB3CFC.5050608@dcrocker.net> <4EBB5310.6080103@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAC4RtVBNL_nTCwBsMQpEKS9kXUF7aj9yEstef7yrzwi8qYAQDg@mail.gmail.com> <4EBB7660.6040904@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 04:33:27 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 63SnosmJr_jTO8p6JnzaA4BFsLM
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVCQ9p9vPH8QJJP2nbWAR8AYe1kCy6DFOcgK0PvwNWvF8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type 'structure': when to go top-level?
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: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:33:28 -0000

>     Consensus Check
>     ===============
>
>     So, I think this leaves guidance in favor of a new top-level
> content-type if one or more of the following apply:
>
>     1.  Strong semantic relationship among the sub-types
>
>     2.  Likelihood of some common code for the set of sub-types
>
>     3.  Expectation that implementors will benefit from easily discovering
> the current set of sub-types in the registry.
>
>
> Does this summarize the guidance that should be offered for justifying a new
> TLCT?

WFM.

[Quick and nitty terminology check: the term of art is "media type",
which is why I was calling them "TLMTs".  We all understand what
people mean when they say "MIME type" or "content type", but "media
type" is what's used in the registry.]

Barry