>
The slides you quote are my interpretation of the traditional rules for
media under the "text" top level type. As you know, there has been some
discussion on relaxing these rules for media types with limited domain
of applicability. The RTP Payload Format for 3GPP timed text might fall
into this new category. Accordingly, we have this MIME review to decide
if the format should be "text" or "video".
Thanks for your answer. So we have that *only* registering for a wider
domain of applicability would require to follow the *traditional* rules.
Would one criteria for assessing the domain of applicability be to group the
use cases in those that don't need modifiers and those that do? This is
intuitive. I.e.:
simple text apps (require no modifiers= no video requirements, thus
text/3gpp-tt?)
-----------
- instant messaging
- text conversation
- other..
more complex apps (have video reqs.)
------------------
- commercial banners (decorated)
- news tickers (decorated)
- karaoke
- clickable text strings
- captions (although most captions don't need modifiers, some do e.g.
scrolling end actors' list)
If this analysis is OK, we could register both and clearly state the
scenarios in which each of them is used. This would enable a client that
just understands UTF8/16 and the payload format to receive the text/3gpp-tt
w/o implementing the more complex timed text decoder, which may be useful.
A side effect of using this classification is that the registration *does
implicitly* follow the traditional rules.
Looking forward to your comments,