On 12 Apr 2005, at 18:30, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:57 PM
To: Colin Perkins
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures' to BCP
[snip]
I'm quite sympathetc to the underlying problem, but IMO this change
is
unacceptable, in that in order to make it work the fact that
a given subtype is
intended for restricted usage would have to be known to the
display agent. The
whole idea of having top-level types is predicated on not
needing this sort of
exception information.
Ned, how would you reconcile the current text in your document with
the
practice specified in RFC 3555? It's been alleged that the documents
are
not in alignment.
Assuming they really are out of alignment, I'd reconcile them by making
whatever changes are appropriate in a revision to RFC 3555. Changing
fundamental aspects of how media types are supposed to work and which
vast
tracts of code depend on is just not an option.
The other changes I suggested were to align the draft with RFC 3555.
This is a related change, primarily introduced because of the
"text/t140 type" which is clearly textual data, but requires software
to decode (and was registered under the RFC 3555 rules). Apologies if
that wasn't clear.
Colin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf