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

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Fri, 18 November 2011 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 B18EA21F8EF0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:03:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 CkVoRP9N2+m3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D5F21F8F1F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id pAI732Cv009505 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:03:05 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 54e7_4fd7_5afc31e8_11b3_11e1_877a_001d096c566a; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:03:02 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:39056) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S156EF4A> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:03:04 +0900
Message-ID: <4EC6031F.7000002@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:02:55 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF0F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC0C2C8.2010500@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8EV98HXC800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <99733F9E-CF97-40BD-B438-300E309D3BF4@apple.com> <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D117FCD6BF2@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org> <4EC31D1D.1000509@stpeter.im> <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D117FCD6ED2@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
In-Reply-To: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D117FCD6ED2@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "gadams@xfsi.com Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:03:15 -0000

Hello Vlad,

On 2011/11/17 5:01, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> Adding Chris Lilley from W3C

> On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:17 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>> Perhaps I am mistaken, but I read the discussion differently: I see an
>> openness to registering font/* now.
>>
>
> Yes. I guess I should've been more specific and should have said that the sentiments expressed few years ago were similar to what was mentioned as part of this discussion (or as quoted from prior discussions). I do see a much more open-minded position to registering font/* now - the question is whether there is still a utility value left in doing this (since we already have quite a few font-* subtypes registered under the application/* tree.

You mention that there are quite a few font types already registered 
under application/. Earlier discussion only brought up 
application/font-tdpfr (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3073), a format 
that as far as I was able to conclude from a quick web search, is no 
longer much in fashion (you may know better).

Can you tell us what the other font types under application/ are?

Regards,    Martin.