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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> Speaking from experience, it occurs to almost no one to think about a
> clipboard type name and then wedge it into an unreceptive form. I
> believe that the folks who fill these out are pretty diligent.

Some are. Many are not.

Having seen every registration that has come in for the past 10+ year, I
speak with some authority here.

> Clearly
> marking optional fields as such and providing links to understand,
> e.g. clipboard type names, allows said diligent netizens to leave less
> interop to chance, which is why they're filling out the form in the
> first place.

Again, I have no objection to adding such fields if people want to spend
the time to do so. However, my skepticism as to their utility remains.

				Ned