[vorbis-dev] Return of the Son of MIME type

[Ralph Giles]

On 25 Oct 2000, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> I just read every post in the web archive of vorbis-dev with "mime" in
> the title. I didn't see any that addressed anything remotely similar
> to the usability arguments I, and numerous other people, raised in
> this go-around. Thus, I think "go read the archives" is not a fair
> response.

Yeah, most of the previous discussion has taken place around filename
extensions. It's not fair. This should be faq. :-/

> Also, if people keep questioning this particular decision (including
> intelligent, experienced engineers), maybe that means that the
> decision should be reconsidered in light of new information.
> 
> Another data point: the fact that QuickTime has only a single file
> type for both audio-only and audio/video files is widely cited as a
> reason it's largely failed to catch on as a format for audio files,
> unlike MPEG (which has separate audio and video mime types).

Not compression quality or the high price of authoring tools? I'd be
interested in any reference pointers you have on this. I kinda missed the
early years of mp3. Did the early file-trading use the web or another 
mime-based protocol? What about in multimedia products and games?

> I also read over Chris Hanson's arguments where he argues that MIME
> type is inadequate for selecting the application to launch for a
> particular file. This simply seems bizzare, because that is the exact
> purpose for which MIME types were invented. Originally this was meant
> for email with non-plain-text data but over time has been extended to
> many more internet protocols, and finally to nearly every desktop that
> has been invented since the internet became popular (previously,
> proprietary concepts of type abounded).

That's not a rebuttal to Chris' arguments, but you're right that the
creator mechanism (particularly as implemented in MacOS) is less useful
in a heterogeneous enviroment. I'm glad to hear Nautilus provides per-file
application preferences! That handles many of the usability advantages
Chris mentioned, in a smarter way. Is there a mechanism for applications
to set that preference, or a policy against same?

> I still haven't seen any serious reason why it would be bad to have
> three easily distinguishable types:
> 
> * audio/x-ogg for files where the primary use is audio
> * video/x-ogg for files where the primary use is video
> * application/x-ogg for anything more complicated

Rakholh's original question remains: how would we determine this
efficiently? Filename extension? Initial binary stream-description
substream that works with mime-magic?

I think the problem is that we fundamentally rate the audio vs. other 
distinction as less important than the flexibility of ogg as a
content-blind bitstream format. That's why we keep arguing about
intangibles.

> P.P.S. I'm not flaming, or at least I don't mean to be. I think
> everything I've said has been courteous and based on facts and
> reasoning. Can't speak for others though.

No, you and Ali have both been polite and reasonable. We're just testy
about having to rehash this design decision again.

Hopefully cordial in return,
 -ralph


--
giles at ashlu.bc.ca

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-dev-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.