Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Fri, 11 November 2011 07:28 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 420FD1F0C62 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:28:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, 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 VIQsygRGVdFP for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:28:18 -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 35D501F0C35 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id pAB7S7HF016842 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:28:07 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 5306_5498_b3a3cc48_0c36_11e1_8c7e_001d096c566a; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:28:07 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:43017) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S156BD74> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:28:11 +0900
Message-ID: <4EBCCE76.2090807@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:27:50 +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: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <24FBF40353ABCC3A4F15E82B@PST.JCK.COM> <4EBB2B83.3060901@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88AB2EM7S00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBBB0EE.8050502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88YVG6MQY00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01O88YVG6MQY00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
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: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:28:19 -0000

On 2011/11/11 1:23, Ned Freed wrote:

>> On 2011/11/10 13:06, Ned Freed wrote:

>> > In practice the issue of what to register where has never been much
>> of a
>> > problem. Speaking now as media types reviewer, I have not infrequently
>> > pushed
>> > back on top-level type choices, usually successfully and always
>> amicably.
>
>> Do you know of any examples? This could help Dave with the general list
>> of criteria that he wants to develop.
>
> I can't get into specifics without talking about the content of
> preliminary registration requests, which I try not to do. I can say that
> the most common one has been someone asking for application when image or
> video would be more appropriate.
>
> The most common name change I request, however, is the addition of +xml.

Okay. This is about change from one existing top-level type to another, 
and about tweaking the minor type name with a suffix. Out of the context 
of the discussion, I thought that you were speaking about new top-level 
types when you wrote "I have not infrequently pushed back on top-level 
type choices", but now I see that that's not a necessary interpretation.

Regards,   Martin.