Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)

David Singer <> Mon, 14 November 2011 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC2F21F8DEF for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:50:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T6k3U3gQ6KlM for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AAF11E8081 for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:50:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Received: from ([]) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPS id <> for; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:50:07 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11807134-b7ce4ae0000052e8-91-4ec1a92f3a11
Received: from [] (Unknown_Domain []) by (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 64.48.21224.F29A1CE4; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:50:07 -0800 (PST)
From: David Singer <>
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:50:06 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Ned Freed <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON33gq7+yoN+Bv+71C1Wv1zBZtF+9wq7 xbaDSxgt/t2ZwGyxfuU0NouNfxaxO7B5TPvZw+yxZMlPJo+myzOYPObtOMTk8W/udnaPZXP3 sASwRXHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlbP3SxFJwUqRiwstVzA2MXQJdjJwcEgImEmea5rNC2GISF+6t Z+ti5OIQEtjIKPHx4h6whLCAi8SiS+uZQGxeAWOJNbfesYDYzAJ6Ejuu/wKrYRNQlXgw5xgj iM0JVLOocSlYnAUo3r75KzPIUGaB74wS+6+uYYdo1pZYtvA1M8RQG4kNN38zQ2yezSjxZGkb 2CQRoO4Fe5tZIM6Tl2j5eodtAiP/LCSHzEJyyCwkcxcwMq9iFCxKzUmsNDTRSywoyEnVS87P 3cQICuWGQpMdjAd/8h9iFOBgVOLhPRly0E+INbGsuDL3EKMEB7OSCG9QGVCINyWxsiq1KD++ qDQntfgQozQHi5I4LzdISiA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwBif2/Mk7vnOA8u8Lr/hWrqhmXHD 2tjs7Av/1BiLghKnRp1W4Jqyc/HtzgfPnEviNu3PC26YHZ/71nG56mfOVs6OPUL39orq/D7k NFuzdeqWJJusQ0U743bKnVxcuq/08N2k4s1fk5gerT3++b/Y5B96MRpW87jFxX+kzGaQ3qa7 PfnysikKQiuUWIozEg21mIuKEwGuDZd2YQIAAA==
Cc: " Adams" <>, Vladimir Levantovsky <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:50:36 -0000

I probably shouldn't volunteer people, but I know Vladimir Levantovsky has expressed interest in this question in the past.  I am sure he'd want to be aware of this discussion.  In fact, I am cc'ing him here….

On Nov 14, 2011, at 13:44 , Ned Freed wrote:

>> On 2011/11/13 5:25, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> > I see no use case for why having font/opentype is any better than application/opentype
>> It's just fine if you, and some others, don't see it. Does that mean
>> that you have to fight against it? You haven't shown, even less
>> mentioned, any problem for font/opentype.
> Good point. I have no skin in this particular game - aside from slightly
> complicating the media review process I have no personal need for font/*. But
> if there's a constituency this type helps, I'm all for it.
>> My guess is that we would have around 10 or so font types registered
>> (and no font type sniffing) if a font/ top level type had been approved
>> in a 1990'ish timeframe.
> And we may or may not have any luck rectifying this at this late date. But I'm
> not  seeing a reason not to try.
>> ...
>> > I also recall a number of years ago an attempt to define "chemical/*" as a
>> > new top level type for use in defining file formats?
>> So what? Were there good reasons to reject it? Or was it rejected
>> because some people believed that new top level types were "A BIG
>> NO-NO"? Or because of some FUD?
> Didn't chemical kind of morph into model? Or am I getting the history confused?
>> > My conclusion from this discussion is that we should declare the MIME
>> > hierarchy closed to new top level types; we've only gotten very limited use and
>> > value out of the hierarchy, compared to the pain and difficulty (text/xml vs
>> > application/xml).
>> The problems between text/xml and application/xml are very specific. And
>> they may be interpreted to say that tying particular processing rules to
>> particular types, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. structured types),
>> may be a bad idea. That doesn't mean that top-level types in general are
>> a bad idea.
> Agreed.
>> The reason that we have gotten very little value out of registering new
>> top level types may be mostly that virtually no new types have been
>> registered, because people are claiming that we get very little value
>> out of them. It sounds funny, but it isn't.
> No, it really isn't funny, is it?
> 				Ned

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.