[AVT] Re: Comments on draft-freed-media-types-reg-01.txt

[ned.freed at mrochek.com]

> On 26 Sep 2004, at 06:13, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:
> >> On 24 Sep 2004, at 16:29, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:
> ...
> >> > This admits the possibility of two conformant pieces of software
> >> > failing to interoperate, and that's not good.
> >> >
> >> >> > Now, nothing says you cannot use a naming convention of some sort
> >> >> to link the
> >> >> > two types in some way. But IMO they really need to be two
> >> different
> >> >> types.
> >> >
> >> >> In which case we have two different and separate namespaces,
> >> trying to
> >> >> share the same registry. This, IMHO, doesn't make sense.
> >> >
> >> > No, what we have is a single registry for specific formats and a
> >> way to
> >> > link formats that are in some way related.
> >
> >> But that link is the media type name, with the domain of applicability
> >> to prevent interoperability problems. This is done in RFCs 3267 and
> >> 3558, for example, and doesn't appear to have caused problems.
> >
> > Two examples where problems haven't yet arisen in a specific domain
> > doesn't mean much. There are hundreds of media types and who knows how
> > many domains of applicability, and the rules have to work for all of
> > them.

> You seem to be arguing that the media types namespace cannot be shared
> between different domains of applicability unless those domains have
> the exact same framing and parameters.

Nope. I'm arguing that a media type name needs to uniquely identify a specific
cononical format. Various encoding details, including some aspects of framing,
can of course be domain-specific. It is also possible for an entire media type
to have a single domain of applicability, but in such cases it is still wrong
to use the same name for something different in another domain.

> I don't see this as realistic,
> since the entire reasoning behind specifying domains of applicability
> for media types is to allow for different framing and parameters.

I do not regard fundamental differences in what goes in the content
as a framing detail. Again, the metric needs to be based on interoperability.

Look, this discussion has become pointless. I find your proposal to use the
same media type name to identify different formats in different domains to be
completely unacceptable, so much so that I will not be party to any
draft that incorporates this concept. Additionally, I see zero support being
offered for this notion from anyone else. I therefore regard the matter
as closed.

				Ned