Re: [media-types] Last tracker issue for mediaman-suffixes

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Orie,

Thanks for your explanations.

On 2024-03-22 20:46, Orie Steele wrote:
> Sorry I was not able to attend the session today.
> 
> My original point was that people should register media types that they
> plan to use, and that filling gaps for things nobody plans to use only for
> the sake of consistency, doesn't make sense.
> 
> In cases where we have used media types with multiple suffixes, we have
> processed the entire media type as an opaque string.
> 
> We don't have any code that string matches on suffixes.

Can you say who "we" is in this case?

Regards,    Martin.

> OS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 5:37 PM Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> See below.
>>
>> [This may be somewhat outdated if the change of direction that was "in
>> the air" in Brisbane gets confirmed on the mailing list.]
>>
>> On 2024-03-20 12:45, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> Registration entries are (relatively) cheap.
>>>
>>> There seems to be no significant value to not registering all legal
>>> sequences of suffixes, when the avoidance of doubt can be achieved by
>>> registering them.
>>>
>>> I think we currently have:
>>>
>>> - if application/foo+bar+baz is to be used, it must be registered.
>>>
>>> - +bar+baz must be registered
>>>
>>> - +baz must be registered
>>>
>>> - There is no registration required for application/foo or
>>> application/foo+bar - these have no standard interpretation.
>>
>> For those such as Orie and Manu who would prefer having gaps in the
>> registration chain, it might make sense to allow comments to
>> registrations saying that suffix or combination of suffixes on their own
>> doesn't make sense without further additions.
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>>> On 3/8/24 09:06, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 1:38 PM Orie Steele <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Otherwise, I think this issue has been addressed by previous
>>>>> feedback, and there is no new information that warrants reopening it.
>>>> Thank you for that summary, Orie. I agree with all of it.
>>>>
>>>> We tried it in the way Orie said he felt made sense (allow gaps in the
>>>> suffixes registry, because some "intermediate suffixes", like
>>>> "+json+jwt", probably won't be used). I (personally) prefer the same
>>>> approach as Orie (to allow gaps in the suffixes registry).
>>>>
>>>> However, there were strong objections to that approach during the last
>>>> meeting, so the only thing left to do is not allow gaps in the
>>>> suffixes registry. So far, we haven't gotten the strength of
>>>> objections to this "no gaps" approach that we did the other "allow
>>>> gaps" approach; on the contrary, it seems like those that would prefer
>>>> the "allow gaps" approach (Orie and myself) are willing to hold our
>>>> noses and go forward with the "no gaps" approach.
>>>>
>>>> -- manu
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> media-types mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> media-types mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
>>
>