On Sat February 12 2005 16:43, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
I think if someone gets as far as looking at the IANA registry they probably are going to take the next step and look at the actual registration for the type they decide on.
One might do that for a specific type of interest on some sort of regular basis. One might do so for the entire tree, one time, to set up a table, then add types and subtypes as they are added to the registries. But I do not think it is reasonable to expect that implementers will sift through the entire tree of registrations regularly in order to catch any change in registration status.
Hinting isn't sufficient IMO. We're trying to provide usage guidance here, so the problematic nature of calling this sort of material text should discussed.
Right. And I'm not sure how something as much as mere hinting can be achieved w.r.t. "obsolete" types with the current registry (lack of) structure [compared, e.g. to the structure of the charset registry]. Much less something that provides clear guidance regarding usage.
The alternative, however, is to say nothing.
I'm not convinced that that's the only alternative. Given that there is work under way to improve the charset registry, it seems feasible in principle to do something similar for the type and subtype registries.
And we have ample experience with this approach and know where it leads: People will continue to use the unregistered types.
I believe that given a registration in an appropriate part of the tree, use will migrate in that direction. Those who make the migration will benefit from improved prospects for interoperability. Those who do not will be where they are now, i.e. operating in uncharted waters.