Dave, The third paragraph of your introduction starts --but only starts-- to answer the obvious questions of "why not use application/ ?" and "why do you need a top-level type?" Assuming we accept your explanation for the first, it seems to me that the second is still a little dicey. You've defined two subtypes and I can think of a handful, but only a handful, of others. Unless there will be far more subtype registrations than that suggests, creating a top-level type doesn't feel right. So, let me ask you, and anyone else who is inclined to think about this, a question: are there other things than fonts which could use a top-level type and whose needs are similar (as described in your introduction)? Is there a more general problem that we can solve here? Is the XML- precedent useful in any way? best, john --On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 13:53 -0800 Dave Singer <singer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-singer-font-mime-00 > .txt> > > This was posted a while back and hasn't received much comment. > I suspect that it is not so much the quality of the writing as > the fact that many haven't noticed it... > > It proposes registering a top-level font/ MIME type for font > formats. Note that it is font formats, just like image > formats, that we propose registering; I understand that in > the past there has been some confusion that it might be fonts > themselves (e.g. font/courier) that would be registered. That > would be like having image/mona-lisa or audio/beethoven5th, of > course. Rather, we propose font/opentype (for example). > > This was modelled on another recent top-level MIME type > definition. > > All comments are gratefully received, of course. > > Best of the season to you all. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf