Dave,
The third paragraph of your introduction starts --but only
starts-- to answer the obvious questions of "why not use
application/ ?" and "why do you need a top-level type?"
Assuming we accept your explanation for the first, it seems to
me that the second is still a little dicey. You've defined two
subtypes and I can think of a handful, but only a handful, of
others. Unless there will be far more subtype registrations
than that suggests, creating a top-level type doesn't feel
right.
So, let me ask you, and anyone else who is inclined to think
about this, a question: are there other things than fonts which
could use a top-level type and whose needs are similar (as
described in your introduction)? Is there a more general
problem that we can solve here? Is the XML- precedent useful
in any way?
best,
john
--On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 13:53 -0800 Dave Singer
<singer(_at_)apple(_dot_)com> wrote:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-singer-font-mime-00
.txt>
This was posted a while back and hasn't received much comment.
I suspect that it is not so much the quality of the writing as
the fact that many haven't noticed it...
It proposes registering a top-level font/ MIME type for font
formats. Note that it is font formats, just like image
formats, that we propose registering; I understand that in
the past there has been some confusion that it might be fonts
themselves (e.g. font/courier) that would be registered. That
would be like having image/mona-lisa or audio/beethoven5th, of
course. Rather, we propose font/opentype (for example).
This was modelled on another recent top-level MIME type
definition.
All comments are gratefully received, of course.
Best of the season to you all.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf