> > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:57 PM > > To: Colin Perkins > > Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Media Type Specifications and > > Registration Procedures' to BCP > [snip] > > I'm quite sympathetc to the underlying problem, but IMO this change is > > unacceptable, in that in order to make it work the fact that > > a given subtype is > > intended for restricted usage would have to be known to the > > display agent. The > > whole idea of having top-level types is predicated on not > > needing this sort of > > exception information. > Ned, how would you reconcile the current text in your document with the > practice specified in RFC 3555? It's been alleged that the documents are > not in alignment. Assuming they really are out of alignment, I'd reconcile them by making whatever changes are appropriate in a revision to RFC 3555. Changing fundamental aspects of how media types are supposed to work and which vast tracts of code depend on is just not an option. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf