Request preliminary check of 8 personal media types

[Mark Baker]

The general approach looks fine, but there's less information there
than would typically be available in the registration template.

I'm not concerned about "+blorb".  Somehow I don't anticipate there
being much contention for that label in the future. 8-)

The use of "version" parameters is often problematic though;
historically, those kinds of parameters aren't used.  Do the different
versions of the Z machine have, say, different magic numbers or are
otherwise distinguishable?  Can you provide any version to a typical
processor and it will just work?  If not, you might consider separate
media types.

The use of "t3vm" as a separate facet in the personal tree is
unconventional, and might be better suited to the vendor tree.  Minor
issue though IMO, since AFAIK, there's no semantic difference between
them.

Mark.

On 5/3/06, Damian Dollahite <master.ryukage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to request a preliminary check of 8 media types collected
> in this document:
>
> http://purl.org/int-fiction/ifmi/documents/mediatypes/
>
> This document is not a registration form or specification, rather it is
> a discussion of issues that need to be addressed so that these formats
> can be registered.  It does include examples of how the registration
> forms might be filled out, however.
>
> Currently, these file formats are being transferred using "x-" prefixed
> types; I'm fairly certain that none of the controllers are aware that
> the prs. tree is open to everyone, or else they just assume that
> registration will involve too much paperwork to bother with.  I plan to
> contact them and present them with this document, as well as
> volunteering to handle the paperwork for them.
>
> Once I've discussed these types with the format controllers, I'll submit
> them for another review before proceeding with registration; at this
> point all I need is a quick look-over to make sure I won't be giving the
> format controllers bad advice.  The thing that especially concerns me is
> my use of a "+blorb" suffix on some of the types.  I realize "+"
> suffixes are discouraged, but something of that nature is needed to
> allow correct dispatch of Blorb files.  If "+blorb" is simply not
> appropriate, I'd appreciate suggestions on how else to solve the
> problem; I do not believe a "." or "-" facet is semantically correct here.
>
> Thank you,
>
>     M.D. Dollahite
>
>
>
>