Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 15A0C11E81F9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:13:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.281
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455]
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 UiaMy-zMzKQA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr07.btconnect.com [213.123.20.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B05011E81B0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-177-208-97.range86-177.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.177.208.97]) by c2bthomr07.btconnect.com with SMTP id FHQ86187; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:13:35 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <001301cca376$15d43940$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF22@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:07:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4EC23B4D.0078, actions=TAG
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.11.15.91515:17:7.586, ip=86.177.208.97, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr07.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.4EC23B4F.023B, ss=1, re=0.000, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:13:44 -0000

I would suggest reading
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68153.html
and then changing the subject line.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>
To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Cc: "Roy Fielding" <fielding@adobe.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 7:59 PM
Subject: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)


> I'd like to discuss the proposal for MIME registrations from Roy Fielding in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/happiana/current/msg00187.html
> and the possibility that such changes should also apply to URI schemes.
>
> You can read Roy's rationale, which makes sense to me, but my summary is:
>
> * Eliminate standards, vendor, personal trees distinction for MIME types (For
URI schemes, eliminate distinction between provisional and permanent schemes)
> * ENCOURAGE vendors to ship with vendor-neutral short-named types regardless
of whether they have been registered yet or not;
>    ENCOURAGE the public to register any names that they have seen in deployed
software. (same for URI schemes)
> * DO NOT try to avoid duplicates
> * EXPERT REVIEW for updates to existing registrations
> * Eliminate any IESG or consensus review requirement
>
> "There is absolutely no need to prevent name collisions in the registry itself
because those collisions are irrelevant -- what matters is how the names are
interpreted by recipients of messages."
> "There is absolutely no need to prevent people who are not the owners of a
media type from registering that type without any prefixes."
> "The registry is not operable -- it is just documentation of how the Internet
is operating, and it should reflect the reality of that operation even if that
means we have multiple definitions per registered type."
>
> I find this perspective appealing, and can't find anything wrong with it
except that it's a break with tradition. If you're at IETF this week and want to
talk about it, find me.
>
> Larry
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>