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

[Colin Perkins]

On 3 Oct 2004, at 18:22, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:
>> 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.

yes, of course.

>> 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.

THAT IS NOT MY PROPOSAL! What I have been arguing for is to allow the
framing and framing specific parameters to vary for different domains
of applicability, yet have received nothing but push back on this. Go
read RFC 3267; only the framing differs.

> Additionally, I see zero support being offered for this notion from 
> anyone else. I therefore regard the matter as closed.
>
> 				Ned
>
>
-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/