Re: [AVT] Re: Comments on draft-freed-media-types-reg-01.txt

> > And interop problems are likely if files are produced without the
> > magic number
> > and software that checks the magic numbers is used. Similarly,
> > treating the
> > magic number as audio data could, depending on the codec involved have
> > some
> > interesting effects.

> Of course, but so what? One clearly needs software that understands the
> format, and if you produce files without the magic number they're not
> conforming.

Sure they are. Your entire entire goal here is to use the same label
for two different formats, one with the magic number and one without.
This admits the possibility of two conformant pieces of software
failing to interoperate, and that's not good.

> > Now, nothing says you cannot use a naming convention of some sort to link the
> > two types in some way. But IMO they really need to be two different types.

> In which case we have two different and separate namespaces, trying to
> share the same registry. This, IMHO, doesn't make sense.

No, what we have is a single registry for specific formats and a way to
link formats that are in some way related.

				Ned

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt