[Vorbis-dev] Clarification on MIME types

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

Ivo,

these are all good concerns.

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.

On 9/3/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <justivo at gmail.com> wrote:
> * Do we need different RFCs for Ogg and Annodex, or does it all go
> together?  I'm working on a single RFC, but trying to describe it all
> in the Introduction is somewhat complex due to their different nature.

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.


> * The new MIME types for Vorbis et al are to be used only when within
> Ogg; what about RTP?  Do RTP streams need a different MIME type too?
> Or do they already have one?

There is an existing section about RTP on our wiki page, see
http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/MIME_Types_and_File_Extensions#Codec_MIME_types
.

These could be included into the RFC or may be part of an RFC that
also standardises the codec formats themselves.


> * Josh did not reply to my message on Flac-dev if he would like us to
> try and register audio/flac as Ralph suggested on the wiki.  Does
> application/flac stay?

Flac inside Ogg will by default be audio/ogg. audio/flac is not
strictly necessary, since it is just a stronger specification of
audio/ogg with flac inside it. I am assuming that application/flac is
being used where flac is in its native container and not inside ogg,
so has nothing to do with "us".


> On 8/29/07, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ivo: I have done these RFCs before, so please put the copies of the
> > draft RFCs that you are working on into svn so we can all share in
> > their development. They should be treated no different to code.
>
> Alright, I'll just try to clean it up a bit more before committing to
> SVN.  I'm using RFC 4329 as a starting template, because it deals with
> a similar issue, and I'd like to use the same technical jargon.

Excellent.


Cheers,
Silvia.