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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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.


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
>