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

[Ned Freed <[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.

It's not a question of what makes sense, it's a question of the information
people have available and thus what they are able and willing to put in a
registration.

Past experience says people are unlikely to go the extra mile to think
about any of this stuff even if we prompt them for it.

				Ned