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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ned,

On 14/11/2011 19:33, Ned Freed wrote:
>> > * Eliminate standards, vendor, personal trees distinction for MIME 
>> types
>> > (For URI schemes, eliminate distinction between provisional and 
>> permanent
>> > schemes)
> OK, so let's see if I have this straight. There are four subprocesses 
> involved:
> (1) Personal type registrations. Rarely used.
> (2) Vendor type registration. Commonly and successfully used.
> (3) Standards tree registration. Used but has issues with timely 
> processing
>    of requests that we're supposed to be tryhing to fix.
> (4) Third party revisions and comments process. Essentially never used.
>
> And the proposal is to throw out (1)-(3)
If by "throw out (1)-(3)" you mean just have 1 type of registration, 
then yes, I think this is what Roy proposed.

I would personally like to better understand the thinking behind having 
a separate standards tree registration. What would be disadvanteges of 
dropping (3)? What was the original purpose for having a separate 
registration from vendor types?
> and depend on (4) happening because
> ... well, because.. This seems ... unlikely.
>
>> > * ENCOURAGE vendors to ship with vendor-neutral short-named types
>> > regardless of whether they have been registered yet or not;
> I think encouraging vendor-neutral registrations would be great. The
> question is how we'd actually do it.
>
>> I think that makes sense for something widely known and used (e.g.
>> application/pdf), but not necessarily for some really company-specific
>> type. (Of course, we don't know in advance which way something may go in
>> the end, but we could use this rule at least for when the company e.g.
>> wants to express that a type is NOT intended for general use).
  [...]