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

"t.petch" <> Tue, 15 November 2011 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A0C11E81F9 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:13:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.281
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UiaMy-zMzKQA for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B05011E81B0 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (HELO pc6) ([]) by with SMTP id FHQ86187; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:13:35 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <001301cca376$15d43940$>
From: "t.petch" <>
To: Larry Masinter <>,
References: <>
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-Status: score=10/50,
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.4EC23B4F.023B, ss=1, re=0.000, fgs=0, ip=, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: Roy Fielding <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:13:44 -0000

I would suggest reading
and then changing the subject line.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: <>
Cc: "Roy Fielding" <>
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
> 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