[Vorbis-dev] Clarification on MIME types

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

Ivo,

I think there is a difference between us and the W3C using a
un-registered MIME type. Thus I would be careful to assume the IETF
will just accept it. They may have suggestions for how to better
achieve what we are trying to do.

I have checked out the links you put up and cannot find the section
where it says that they like to see the standards MIME types in use
before registration. So, I'd be careful.

They now have a sped-up process for registering MIME types through
that online form, so once the RFC is ratified (which could be done
within a few months), it will all be ok.

Right now, I would suggest to put our efforts on getting that RFC
done, so the process can start.

Regards,
Silvia.

On 9/3/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <justivo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the heads-up, Silvia.
>
> On 9/2/07, Silvia Pfeiffer <silvia at annodex.net> wrote:
> > The reality is that currently we cannot use any of the non-registered
> > MIME types, but have to resort to the "x-" extensions while we are in
> > the process of preparing the RFCs.
>
> This is not a reality.  It's what would be called a "Best Practice".
> However, we should avoid it.
>
> Look at RSS.  application/rss+xml has been in use for years even
> though the RSS board only last year started the process of registering
> that media type.  For years.  There was never an
> application/x-rss+xml.  Even the W3C has been using it as far as 2004.
>  Perhaps even prior to that.  And to this day, application/rss+xml is
> STILL not registered with IANA as far as I know.
>
> The reality is: x-whatever frustrates developers and users alike who
> need to keep up if the media type has been registered or not.  Their
> frustration hurts our cause.
>
> The registration process is so bureaucratic that it may take years
> before all new media types become officially registered.  We risk
> becoming unrelevant before that process is over.  We are changing
> media types and file extensions to actually help promote our formats.
>
> And think of the confusion it will cause for someone to see that
> application/ogg is okay but for video it would have to be video/x-ogg.
>  It just wouldn't cut well.
>
> For these reasons, and because it appears the IETF prefers to see
> actual use of media types prior to registration, I will revert your
> edits in the wiki if you do not disagree.
>
> > At this point, I would not put them together. I would write a Ogg MIME
> > types RFC which needs to include the adaptation to application/ogg,
> > and the new audio/ogg and video/ogg ones. These need to describe where
> > all the existing and new file extensions fit and how it is all
> > structured.
>
> Alright.
>
>
> -Ivo
> _______________________________________________
> Vorbis-dev mailing list
> Vorbis-dev at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis-dev
>