Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appswg-xdash-03

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 3/10/12 9:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Saturday, March 10, 2012 12:48 -0600 Pete Resnick
> <[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> On 3/10/12 12:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> On 3/10/2012 10:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>        
>>>> However, an
>>>> interpretation of Dave's statement could extend to a
>>>> prohibition, not only on faceted or hierarchical names but on
>>>> the "+xml" arrangements and the like that we've used in media
>>>> types.
>>>>          
>>> Unless I've entirely misunderstood the use of that qualifier,
>>> it  indicates an encoding framework for the labeled data, not
>>> it's 'status'.
>>>        
>> Ah! That would be a lovely distinction to make in the
>> introduction in so many words: It's when a piece of the name
>> is used to indicate a *status* rather than a *type* that
>> presents the problem. That would be a great clarification.
>>      
> Sure.  Except that, while "experimental" or "private use" are
> examples of "status", "extension" is a type.  And that, I
> believe, takes us back to square one.
>    

No, you've misunderstood my distinction, which means we haven't gotten 
the wording quite right. When I said "type", I meant "type of *content* 
being named". So, "+xml" is indicating a "type" of data or content. 
"Extension" is a status. It's how the *name* is being used, not what the 
*content* is.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]