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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 A6E8311E80FA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:08:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 PFeSmzNMxLJy for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:08:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64BB11E80E8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:08:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1321322923; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=TeegiNT0lKC6VFJaJ52J9msFRRDWJ0Y0K05tqwJI2bc=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=tKJauv8QVMl9U1LQsv9DctG/evy4Ytt7kBsJ1HA5HVL6JxRzoX+fmsi8/wSBb0/EIUo2FZ R93hzzvX7re2atp+6NjVWRRnV4d6QhOnvzDe680E1uvXTF1yEwZaitSskCGiOsoqfgAXuV iNALgf6ZtnxWlDmY+njvFxPIs/UDCfU=;
Received: from [192.168.174.158] (60-251-183-229.HINET-IP.hinet.net [60.251.183.229]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <TsHJpwAFEB9q@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:08:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4EC1C9A6.6080201@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:08:38 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF22@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC0BE9E.8020702@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8ETBP3QY400RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01O8ETBP3QY400RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] A modest proposal for MIME types (and URI schemes)
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, 15 Nov 2011 02:08:44 -0000

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).
  [...]