Bear in mind, also, that people can define additional content-types
after this RFC is finished. The list in this RFC is intended to
provide us with a good shared starting point, but it is not intended
to preclude future content-type definitions. -- Nathaniel
Then, we better spell out carefully how additional content-types get
defined, and who elevates them to "standards" (if any), et al.
Should we be putting our initial set into an appendix, instead of into
the main text of RFC-XXXX? Don't we need to cleanly separate the
timeless "types" from their "instances" in the RFC?
Have we really specified (and is the IANA creating) a new register of
context types, with all the registration and publication rules that
have to go with it. I recall some handwaving language in the RFC that
says that it is Somebody Else's Problem (SEP Technology Strikes
Again), but has "somebody else" picked up the implied responsibility?
What has to be done, if anything to make it happen? I believe in
magic, but ...\Stef