IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 08 November 2011 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 155C71F0C75 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:02:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 01Boj+KC+BGa for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3ADC1F0C6F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:02:23 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:02:22 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] font/*
Thread-Index: AcyeaT5jeA/aT3oqR6mAM/kEB6B6xgAASLHg
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14F26@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <4EB8E7FA.5030406@ninebynine.org> <CAC4RtVA-33Sv8UqhL7feXX0h90KZF+rL0_iG1DimRp-MY-r0tg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVA-33Sv8UqhL7feXX0h90KZF+rL0_iG1DimRp-MY-r0tg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
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, 08 Nov 2011 23:02:24 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:53 PM
> To: Graham Klyne
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
> 
> But then I thought again, and I said, "Gee: that's always true.  If we
> always think that, then wouldn't *everything* just be
> 'application/<something>'?  And then what would the point of top-level
> types be in the first place?"
> 
> We have the precedent, as it's set up in the first place, to say,
> "This is text," and "This is audio," and "This is an image," and "This
> is video."  It seems to me that, "This is a font definition," is as
> much a statement of a distinct media type as the others are.

I think that's part of what I was trying to get at earlier, but you did a far better job than I did.

+1.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email