Subject: Re: [media-types] updates to RFC6838 in the horizon?

From: "Paul Libbrecht" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:04:32 +0200

Dear all,

this topic seems to have gone asleep since a while.

Can anyone provide me information on the process of suggesting changes 
to the RFC 6838 (Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures)?

thanks in advance.

Paul

On 8 Dec 2016, at 23:17, Paul Libbrecht wrote:

> This goes along the proposal I had to add UTI and Windows clipboard 
> flavour names within the template. I remember having been too late 
> "last time".
> […]
> Ned, how is the process to file such a change fo the template?
>
>>> 2) Is there value in adding the Apple UTI (which is at least 
>>> documented, and in current use) to the registration templates?
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of, but more information can't hurt.
>>> My reason for asking is draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel/
>>
>>> which will define a new top-level Media Type for fonts. I am very 
>>> tempted to just remove the "Macintosh file type code" from the 
>>> registration template, and could go either way on replacing it with 
>>> an "Apple Uniform Type Identifier"
>>> field - opinions welcome.
>>
>> Either way works.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:02:52 +0100

Hi Paul,

> to the RFC 6838 (Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures)?

Post a new draft with the new template(*)? I can't promise that there
would be enough energy to get the update done, but seeing something
concrete would certainly help.

(*) - if you never done this, contact me off-list.

Thank you,
Alexey

> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:38:46 -0700 (PDT)

I don't see a problem with a draft updating the template. Pretty low cost thing
to do. OTOH, nothing prevents a registration from including "additional"
additional information, nor is a registration precluded from omitting any or
all of the additional information fields.

So the value of formally adding the fields would be if it gets people to
list them when they wouldn't otherwise. Given past experience I'm skeptical
this will happen.

				Ned

---

From: "Paul Libbrecht" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:17:33 +0200

Thank you Ned,

> all of the additional information fields.

That’s pretty clear and it seems like, such an actualisation is 
probably useful to at least give a hint that clipboard types may be 
relevant.

> list them when they wouldn't otherwise. Given past experience I'm 

Well, on this, I think it does depend a lot on the type.
Sometimes it makes no sense (to all or to some) to make consider put 
this into a clipboard (e.g. because a selection does not make sense) and 
for these, the authors will simply ignore it. At least, it seems to me 
that clipboard type names make more sense than Macintosh 4-letter codes.

thanks

paul

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 07:41:33 -0700 (PDT)

> that clipboard type names make more sense than Macintosh 4-letter codes.

It's not a question of what makes sense, it's a question of the information
people have available and thus what they are able and willing to put in a
registration.

Past experience says people are unlikely to go the extra mile to think
about any of this stuff even if we prompt them for it.

				Ned

---

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 00:43:16 -0400

* Ned Freed <[email-masked]> [2018-10-20 07:41-0700]
> about any of this stuff even if we prompt them for it.

Speaking from experience, it occurs to almost no one to think about a
clipboard type name and then wedge it into an unreceptive form. I
believe that the folks who fill these out are pretty diligent. Clearly
marking optional fields as such and providing links to understand,
e.g. clipboard type names, allows said diligent netizens to leave less
interop to chance, which is why they're filling out the form in the
first place.

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

([email-masked])
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 07:48:37 -0700 (PDT)

> believe that the folks who fill these out are pretty diligent.

Some are. Many are not.

Having seen every registration that has come in for the past 10+ year, I
speak with some authority here.

> Clearly

Again, I have no objection to adding such fields if people want to spend
the time to do so. However, my skepticism as to their utility remains.

				Ned