On 7 Sep 2004, at 13:54, Jose Rey wrote: ...
There are other text formats that include formatting modifiers, for example "text/html". I don't understand why their presence would make this a video format.
Ok, I was guiding myself more by the what I understood as type of apps. However, just for my clarity: if we wouldn't use the "relaxed rules" could I still use text/? Is text/t140 conformat to the 'traditional rules'?
None of the RTP payload formats -- not text, audio or video -- can be used with the 'traditional' rules. This is the reason why the MIME registration rules are being updated.
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).
The MIME subtype /3gpp-tt cannot be used for HTML download since for that purpose a 3gp file and therefore the video/3gp MIME type is used. So I think this is indeed restricted to RTP. However, what is the gain of doing that?
My point was that, since this is restricted to transport via RTP, it can be registered under the "text" top-level media type.
What I mean is what would be the use of having two, not one or the other.
The media type for the file format may well be different than that for the RTP payload format, if that's what you mean. Colin