W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 22:00:14 -0700
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20110207220014.57ec1f15.eric@bisonsystems.net>
Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> I don't know what kind of" groundwork" you want laid or why it
> would make sense.
>

Defining what suffixes mean.  The current definition...

"More generally, '+suffix' constructs should be used with care, given
the possibility of conflicts with future suffix definitions."

...is not reflective of reality, *that's* what doesn't make sense.

>
> +xml got defined, for better or worse, without prior" groundwork".
>

As an experiment.  The experiment was a success.  The standard needs to
be updated to account for this success, so that the registry stays
current with modern expectations based on that success.  There was no
need to define +suffix before +xml came along, i.e. no need for prior
groundwork.  Now that +xml *has* defined +suffix, it's time to adopt
that definition in general, to lay the groundwork for insisting that
they be defined uniformly (as opposed to +suffix meaning whatever any
given media type says it means, in which case what's the point of the
syntax even existing).

>
> Defining policies in general doesn't seem hefpful.
>

Allowing suffixes without defining what they're meant for, isn't
helpful -- although the current wording was appropriate when it was
written, before +xml, times have changed.  The registry defines general
meanings for "image", "text", and "application", so I don't see why it
shouldn't also define +suffix.

>
> What do you think using+ son in a mime type SHOULD mean
>

Exactly what everyone else thinks it DOES mean -- folks tend to be
surprised to find out this isn't what it means, that it's actually
undefined.

>
> and can you get anyone to agree with you?
> 

Yes, Ned Freed, whose views I've been deferring to in this discussion,
as he does seem to be the person who knows more about this than anyone
else:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01062.html

But please don't make this about me, I don't have a horse in this race.
My interest is in improving the utility of the registry, by identifying
where it fails to meet community expectations.  I've identified a
problem and surfaced a solution.  I'm not part of the problem, and
haven't suggested the solution.  I've merely reported my findings as an
observer, and suggested a course of action.

-Eric
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 06:12:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:30 GMT