It looked like there was some controversy about this, so I decided to take a look. It does seem to me that if it wants to claim an IETF mime type rather than a vnd. one, at the least the exposition needs to be clarified. The introduction of the draft itself references various features of the encoding but seems to be more oriented toward the connoisseur of image encoding formats than users. The documents are wishy-washy regarding compatibility and extensibility, as if these are current snapshots of something that is expected to evolve organically. For instance, section 4 "Interoperability Considerations" includes "The container is RIFF-based and allows extension via user defined chunks" but does not mention this statement in the referenced document: "Older readers may not support files using the lossless format." If we aren't just assigning a code for a vendor's product, we need to put a stake in the ground that is definitive what the format is and isn't, that we expect to stay in the same place for at least five years. Dale -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
