Re: Media Types in 3GPP Timed text draft (was: RE: [AVT] RTP andMediaTypes)
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/".
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
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
Colin, Thanks for your answers. See inline.
-----Original Message----- From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 12:03 PM To: Jose Rey Cc: IETF AVT WG; Dave Singer; Magnus Westerlund; IETF-Types Subject: Re: Media Types in 3GPP Timed text draft (was: RE: [AVT] RTP andMediaTypes)
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?
below..
Is this fundamentally text or a video codec? If it's a video codec, it should be under "video/", otherwise under "text/".
I think it is a video codec, since without the video capabilities (modifiers) it would just provide the same services as , e.g., conversational text=just plain timed text, for which it is not thought to be used.
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? Given the answer to the first question I think registering under text/ would not be of any use? Cheers, Jose
Colin
participants (3)
-
Colin Perkins -
Dave Singer -
Jose Rey