If what I am reading is correct it sounds like the real design mistake here was
putting semantics into content types in the first place.
A code point registration should be just that, registration of a unique
identifier to prevent confusion. Once people start adding semantics into the
identifier the choice of name starts to have consequences.
At one point there were people arguing that it should be application/html. They
were wrong and they were (rightly) ignored. But the arguments made then
demonstrated that the taxonomic scheme for the semantics was bogus.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:48 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; 'Eliot Lear'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: RFC 4612 - historic status
Paul E. Jones wrote:
Brian,
The problem with using "image" is that it would mean that a gateway
would have to do one of:
1) Close the audio session and open an image session
2) Open a second "image" session during mid-call
3) Open both an audio session and image session at the outset
The real underlying problem was that the idea of an "audio
session" was a design mistake.
Practice has shown that sessions consist of multiple media.
Unfortunately the IETF hasn't fixed that design mistake, so
the ITU has kluged around it with things like "audio/t34".
My opinion. And yes, the discussion of how to recover from
that mistake belongs in the RAI area.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf