[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AVT] Re: Comments on draft-freed-media-types-reg-01.txt
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
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt