headers
Steve Mills | 2 Oct 2007 15:25
Favicon

registering new MIME types for an application


I'm not sure if this is the correct list for this (there are tons!),  
but it was suggested that I try this list. Here's my question:

We have recently been asked by one of our customers if we have  
registered MIME types for our application's documents. They said they  
needed MIME types because part of their process is web-based, and  
suggested we use the following assignments:

application/vnd.multiad.creator
image/vnd.multiad.creator

MultiAd is our company name. Creator is the name of our software  
application which creates and edits documents. The Creator file  
format is proprietary. While Creator documents are of a graphical  
nature, I don't feel they are "image" documents in the same vein that  
the current

I've read through RFC4288, but am still unsure if we should register  
only the application/vnd.multiad.creator or both the appliation and  
image types. I'm very new to this whole MIME type process (I'm a  
developer, not an IT type person). Would you be able to suggest what  
would be best, or explain why both might be required?

_________________________________________________________
Steve Mills                              Me: 952-401-6255
Senior Software Architect                         MultiAd
smills <at> multiad.com                       www.multi-ad.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Mills | 2 Oct 2007 15:56
Favicon

registering new MIME types for an application


Sorry, I noticed an unfinished sentence below.

I'm not sure if this is the correct list for this (there are tons!),  
but it was suggested that I try this list. Here's my question:

We have recently been asked by one of our customers if we have  
registered MIME types for our application's documents. They said they  
needed MIME types because part of their process is web-based, and  
suggested we use the following assignments:

application/vnd.multiad.creator
image/vnd.multiad.creator

MultiAd is our company name. Creator is the name of our software  
application which creates and edits documents. The Creator file  
format is proprietary. While Creator documents are of a graphical  
nature, I don't feel they are "image" documents in the same vein that  
the current
<EDIT>
list of image/* types are. But since they certainly aren't audio or  
video, I guess image is the tree that fits best.
</EDIT>

I've read through RFC4288, but am still unsure if we should register  
only the application/vnd.multiad.creator or both the appliation and  
image types. I'm very new to this whole MIME type process (I'm a  
developer, not an IT type person). Would you be able to suggest what  
would be best, or explain why both might be required?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Pete Resnick | 3 Oct 2007 01:07

Re: registering new MIME types for an application


On 10/2/07 at 8:56 AM -0500, Steve Mills wrote:

>MultiAd is our company name. Creator is the name of our software 
>application which creates and edits documents. The Creator file 
>format is proprietary. While Creator documents are of a graphical 
>nature, I don't feel they are "image" documents in the same vein 
>that the current list of image/* types are. But since they certainly 
>aren't audio or video, I guess image is the tree that fits best.
>
>I've read through RFC4288, but am still unsure if we should register 
>only the application/vnd.multiad.creator or both the appliation and 
>image types. I'm very new to this whole MIME type process (I'm a 
>developer, not an IT type person). Would you be able to suggest what 
>would be best, or explain why both might be required?

I don't see a reason to register the image type. It sounds like your 
documents are in the same category as PDFs, which are certainly an 
application sub-type. Register the application/vnd.multiad.creator 
and be done with it. :-)

pr
--

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Steve Mills | 3 Oct 2007 16:26
Favicon

Re: registering new MIME types for an application


On Oct 2, 2007, at 18:07:15, Pete Resnick wrote:

> I don't see a reason to register the image type. It sounds like  
> your documents are in the same category as PDFs, which are  
> certainly an application sub-type. Register the application/ 
> vnd.multiad.creator and be done with it. :-)

Great! Thanks so much for responding.

_________________________________________________________
Steve Mills                              Me: 952-401-6255
Senior Software Architect                         MultiAd
smills <at> multiad.com                       www.multi-ad.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pete Resnick | 4 Oct 2007 00:20

Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-2822upd-03


Notes:

- There may be a couple of formatting issues. (I'm using a 
non-released version of xml2rfc.) Those will be cleaned up before 
release.

- I've put in stronger language, though made no ABNF change, wrt 
domain-literal/msg-id issues. Frank and Charles are the only people 
on the list making comments about the issue at this point, and I'm 
not convinced they've reached a satisfactory conclusion that goes 
beyond the note I put in each section.

pr

--- begin forwarded text

Return-Path: <mirror <at> ietf.org>
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission <at> ietf.org>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-2822upd-03
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:36:39 -0400

A new version of I-D, draft-resnick-2822upd-03.txt has been 
successfuly submitted by Pete Resnick and posted to the IETF 
repository.

Filename:	 draft-resnick-2822upd
Revision:	 03
Title:		 Internet Message Format
Creation_date:	 2007-10-03
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 9 Oct 2007 14:39
Picon
Picon

Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-2822upd-03


Pete Resnick wrote:

> no ABNF change, wrt domain-literal/msg-id issues. Frank and Charles
> are the only people on the list making comments about the issue at
> this point

IIRC Russ and Alexey also prefer better compatibility with NetNews
for the RHS of Message-IDs.  If you feel that the NetNews concept of
a "canonical Message-ID" is not important enough for 2822upd there's
another way to solve it:

Just get rid of NO-WS-CTL in the definition of <dtext>.  Proposal:

| dtext           = %d33-90 /          ; Visible US-ASCII characters
|                   %d94-126           ; excluding "[", "]", or "\"

That also fixes the pollution of the <General-address-literal> in
2821bis, and it's nearer to <IPvFuture> in STD 66.  The <IPvFuture>
construct excludes more printable US-ASCII characters, not only [\],
also <>/?# <at> .  

Control characters in domain literals just make no sense, especially
when we're talking about fictitious "General-address-literal" or
"IPvFuture" literals.  For real IPv4 and IPv6 literals it's already
settled that they don't contain control characters.

I don't think that you need an <obs-dtext> for this issue.  You could
just argue that the interoperability of control characters in domain
literals was questionable using NetNews / mail2news gateways / NNTP
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Russ Allbery | 10 Oct 2007 01:34
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-2822upd-03


"Frank Ellermann" <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> writes:
> Pete Resnick wrote:

>> no ABNF change, wrt domain-literal/msg-id issues. Frank and Charles
>> are the only people on the list making comments about the issue at
>> this point

> IIRC Russ and Alexey also prefer better compatibility with NetNews
> for the RHS of Message-IDs.

Yes, I still think that it would be a good idea to make changes here.  I'm
just not willing to keep reiterating my belief without adding anything
new, and I don't really have anything new to add.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Mills | 10 Oct 2007 02:40
Favicon

How long does approval take?


How long does it take for submitted MIME types to get approval once  
they've been submitted? It was in the application/vnd tree.

_________________________________________________________
Steve Mills                              Me: 952-401-6255
Senior Software Architect                         MultiAd
smills <at> multiad.com                       www.multi-ad.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 11 Oct 2007 22:02
Picon
Picon

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-2822upd-03


In <p06250106c329c53671dd <at> [74.134.5.163]> Pete Resnick <presnick <at> qualcomm.com> writes:

>Notes:

>- There may be a couple of formatting issues. (I'm using a 
>non-released version of xml2rfc.) Those will be cleaned up before 
>release.

>- I've put in stronger language, though made no ABNF change, wrt 
>domain-literal/msg-id issues. Frank and Charles are the only people 
>on the list making comments about the issue at this point, and I'm 
>not convinced they've reached a satisfactory conclusion that goes 
>beyond the note I put in each section.

I'm 90% happy (particularly in the 3.4.1 language - I am not so sure that 
"the context in which they are used" really means much in in 3.6.4). And
Frank has a valid point regarding the horrors of NO-WS-CTL.

But 90% is still < 100% :-( .

Also, there remains the matter of the SP after the colon after the
header-name. Frank and I proposed some non-normative texts a week or so
back which AFAICS do no harm, but which warn of possible interoperability
problems and should encourage implementors to continue the current
convention of putting it there anyway.

But I welcome the many nit-fixes you have put in.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tony Hansen | 16 Oct 2007 17:34
Picon
Favicon

Mailing List Last Call now open for draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-05.txt

This is a "formal" Mailing List Last Call on
draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-05.txt. The last call will last for two weeks
time, ending on October 30, 2007.

Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
> 	Title           : Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
> 	Filename        : draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-05.txt
>...
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-05.txt

If you go to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-rfc2821bis and
click on [Diff1], you'll see a highlighted list of changes between this
and the previous version.

Major changes for this release are indicated in Appendix G.7.

   G.7.  Changes from version -04 to -05
   1.  Added registry pointers to Section 8 (issue 36).
   2.  "for" clause in Received header reduced to a single mailbox,
       since this seems to reflect list consensus (issue 37).  An
       "additional registered clauses" entry was made to allow for
       future extension (also issue 37).
   3.  Corrected some I-D references to point to now-published RFCs.

At this point, all extant issues are considered closed.

The Mailing List Last Call is now declared open.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane