Scripting Media Types

[Bruce Lilly]

On Sat February 12 2005 16:43, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:

> I think if someone gets as far as looking at the IANA registry
> they probably are going to take the next step and look at the
> actual registration for the type they decide on.

One might do that for a specific type of interest on some sort
of regular basis.  One might do so for the entire tree, one
time, to set up a table, then add types and subtypes as they
are added to the registries.  But I do not think it is reasonable
to expect that implementers will sift through the entire tree
of registrations regularly in order to catch any change in
registration status.

> > > Hinting isn't sufficient IMO. We're trying to provide usage guidance here,
> > > so the problematic nature of calling this sort of material text should
> > > discussed.
> 
> > Right.  And I'm not sure how something as much as mere hinting can
> > be achieved w.r.t. "obsolete" types with the current registry (lack
> > of) structure [compared, e.g. to the structure of the charset
> > registry].  Much less something that provides clear guidance
> > regarding usage.
> 
> The alternative, however, is to say nothing.

I'm not convinced that that's the only alternative.  Given that
there is work under way to improve the charset registry, it seems
feasible in principle to do something similar for the type and
subtype registries.

> And we have ample experience with 
> this approach and know where it leads: People will continue to use the
> unregistered types.

I believe that given a registration in an appropriate part of
the tree, use will migrate in that direction.  Those who make
the migration will benefit from improved prospects for
interoperability.  Those who do not will be where they are now,
i.e. operating in uncharted waters.