Re: [arcmedia] FW: [apps-discuss] Proposed charter for arcmedia

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stian,

On 02/01/2015 10:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> I think the whole point of the archive/ type is the general
> archive/file fall-back, as discussed in the BOF - e.g. the OS/browser
> can do "I don't know how to deal with this
> archive/grahams-latest-thing, I'll just throw it at
> Winzip/7Zip/Archive Manager and hope for the best" - it's a similar
> default as Notepad for text/* and Gimp for image/*.

I don't know what was said at the BoF.  This being the IETF, it didn't 
officially happen unless it also appears on the mailing list.

Is this something that you think should appear in the charter?

I'm not entirely convinced that archive/<unknown> has a safe fallback like 
text/<unknown> - I think in that respect it's more like application/<unknown> 
which falls back to application/octet-stream, for which the default behaviour is 
generally to just save it.  Of course, individual implementations may use their 
own local fallback strategies along the lines you suggest, but I'd suggest 
that's out of scope for a MIME type spec.

>
> Packaging-on-the-web *is* relevant, because it is deliberately an
> archive, while say application/vnd.msoffice.cant.remember.exactly.docx
> is NOT meant to be an archive for the general user. It is not helpful
> for grandma to get her word-document expanded as a file structure. A
> developer who wants to extract images might like that - but she would
> need to know more than it being an archive.

Well, that wasn't my reading of http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/, 
but rather that it is intended for efficient delivery of complex web pages. 
Specifically, the descision to *not* use regular MIME multipart format there was 
because that does not lend itself to streaming data processing, which I don't 
see as a requirement for archives (in the sense of preservation formats).  But I 
could be missing something, so feel free to point out why you think it is an 
archive format.  (I'm not sure what the msoffice example has to do with this - 
I'd say that too is clearly not an archive format.)

All this is probably moot with the revised charter wording - "Archive formats 
are used to aggregate multiple files and other data into a single object"; this 
suggests a broader reading of "archive" which I think the packaging-on-web spec 
does address (and per current charter, the msoffice stuff too, but I don't 
offhand think that has much to say to archive MIME type requirements).

>
> I'm not sure what is the timeline for
> http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/ - it doesn't say.  I
> have anyway reminded them about us at
> https://github.com/w3ctag/packaging-on-the-web/issues/13 :)

Good!  It's been quiescent for a while, but I think did see a recent mention of 
it on the W3C TAG list.

#g
--

>
> On 1 January 2015 at 04:17, Graham Klyne <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2015 00:02, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>>
>>> Happy new year...
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Larry Masinter
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:01 PM
>>> To: 'Graham Klyne'; Murray S. Kucherawy; Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Apps Discuss
>>> Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Proposed charter for arcmedia
>>>
>>> I think the arcmedia WG charter should take into the W3C TAG work on
>>> packaging/archives
>>>
>>> http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/
>>
>>
>> Agreed.  But noting that there could be some differences in emphasis, as
>> that format is not intended to be an *archive* format.   Which I guess begs
>> a question here: should the charter focus to be on *archive* or more broadly
>> on multiple-file packaging formats?  (I'm not sure what difference that
>> would make in practice, but I have a feeling some archival specialists might
>> have something to add about this.)  I lean to the latter, but "archive
>> format" is a more concise description.
>>
>> In particular, if suggesting a common fragment identifier format, I think
>> the specification in the W3C document could be useful to consider for
>> adoption.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>>>
>>> (W3c-tag bcc)
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: apps-discuss [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Graham Klyne
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:00 AM
>>>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Apps Discuss
>>>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed charter for arcmedia
>>>>
>>>> Re:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/arcmedia/current/msg00001.html
>>>>
>>>> I think the suggested charter looks pretty good.  The work seems
>>>> well-scoped to me.
>>>>
>>>> I'd expect to review at least the proposed base document, and maybe
>>>> some of the initial registrations.
>>>>
>>>> #g
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30/12/2014 18:13, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
>>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi - what's the status of the chartering of the arcmedia WG? I
>>>>>> don't see that it has been added to http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
>>>>>> and there is no further emails on the arcmedia mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A mailing list was created shortly after the November meeting, and
>>>>> the proposed charter was posted there and here.  There has been no
>>>>> response of any kind.
>>>>>
>>>>> -MSK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> apps-discuss mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> apps-discuss mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> arcmedia mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/arcmedia
>
>
>