Re: [media-types] updates to RFC6838 in the horizon?

["Paul Libbrecht" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Ned,

On 19 Oct 2018, at 0:38, Ned Freed wrote:

> I don't see a problem with a draft updating the template. Pretty low 
> cost thing
> to do. OTOH, nothing prevents a registration from including 
> "additional"
> additional information, nor is a registration precluded from omitting 
> any or
> all of the additional information fields.

That’s pretty clear and it seems like, such an actualisation is 
probably useful to at least give a hint that clipboard types may be 
relevant.

> So the value of formally adding the fields would be if it gets people 
> to
> list them when they wouldn't otherwise. Given past experience I'm 
> skeptical
> this will happen.

Well, on this, I think it does depend a lot on the type.
Sometimes it makes no sense (to all or to some) to make consider put 
this into a clipboard (e.g. because a selection does not make sense) and 
for these, the authors will simply ignore it. At least, it seems to me 
that clipboard type names make more sense than Macintosh 4-letter codes.

thanks

paul

>
>> Hi Paul,
>
>> On 16/10/2018 16:04, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> this topic seems to have gone asleep since a while.
>>>
>>> Can anyone provide me information on the process of suggesting 
>>> changes
>>> to the RFC 6838 (Media Type Specifications and Registration 
>>> Procedures)?
>
>> Post a new draft with the new template(*)? I can't promise that there
>> would be enough energy to get the update done, but seeing something
>> concrete would certainly help.
>
>> (*) - if you never done this, contact me off-list.
>
>> Thank you,
>> Alexey
>
>>> thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 8 Dec 2016, at 23:17, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>>>
>>>> This goes along the proposal I had to add UTI and Windows clipboard
>>>> flavour names within the template. I remember having been too late
>>>> "last time".
>>>> […]
>>>> Ned, how is the process to file such a change fo the template?
>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Is there value in adding the Apple UTI (which is at least
>>>>>> documented, and in current use) to the registration templates?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that I'm aware of, but more information can't hurt.
>>>>>> My reason for asking is draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel/
>>>>>
>>>>>> which will define a new top-level Media Type for fonts. I am very
>>>>>> tempted to just remove the "Macintosh file type code" from the
>>>>>> registration template, and could go either way on replacing it 
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> an "Apple Uniform Type Identifier"
>>>>>> field - opinions welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way works.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> media-types mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types