Comments on draft-freed-media-types-reg-01.txt

[Colin Perkins]

On 27 Oct 2004, at 19:34, Ben Morrow wrote:
> At  4pm on 27/10/04 you (Colin Perkins) wrote:
>> I'd also like to see a resolution of this, since we have new RTP
>> payload formats under development that need MIME types to be assigned,
>> and it's clear there are different understandings of the rules.
>
> What would people think about standardising the suffix '+rtp' for RTP
> media types that differ from their on-disk format? Then we could
> unabiguously have two types video/foo and video/foo+rtp, with a clear
> relationship between them.

This raises the issue of whether it's worth sharing the namespace 
between RTP and other users, but yes.

> FWIW, I would agree that having incompatible formats given the same 
> type
> but 'in different domains' is a very bad idea. Data has a nasty habit 
> of
> leaking between 'domains' :)

Sure, I have no problem with that. I'm just looking for clarification 
in the draft on what makes formats incompatible, since the boundary 
doesn't seem to be well defined (especially if the concept of framed 
data formats is accepted). This discussion came about since there are 
existing formats sharing a name which some consider to be compatible, 
but others consider incompatible.

Colin