At 11:02 AM +0100 9/7/04, Colin Perkins wrote:
Jose,
On 17 Aug 2004, at 14:42, Jose Rey wrote:
Dave and I have been discussing this offline and come to the following conclusions:
1.- it is not envisioned that the 3GPP Timed Text payload format will be used for applications such as instant messaging or text conversation, which do not precise of text decoration for working properly, since there are other more appropriate media types covering these usages, like text/t140. Hence, video/ is enough.
I agree that this is not likely to be used for instant messaging or text conversation, although I don't understand why that would be relevant? Is this fundamentally text or a video codec? If it's a video codec, it should be under "video/", otherwise under "text/".
It's fundamentally for presenting visual information, but that visual information is achieved by rendering text. It all depends on what the meaning of "text codec" is...
2.- we are not clear on what exactly means to "relax rules for media registration under text/". I.e. is text/t140 an example of these "relaxed" rules or does it comply with the traditional rules as per rfc 2046? Does the relaxed rules just mean that besides text also payload headers of that media type are udnerstood?
My understanding is that the new rules are intended to allow formats such as 3GPP timed text to be registered under the text top-level media type, if appropriate, provided their domain of applicability is clearly specified (e.g. the domain of applicability might be that the type is defined for transfer via RTP only).
Colin
ah, OK. for me, I don't mind which of text/ or video/ is chosen, provided it is only one of them! -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime