[mpeg-OTspec] top-level media type for ISO/IEC 14496-22?

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

On Thursday, May 03, 2012 8:31 AM Suzuki-san wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 09:51:42 Vladimir wrote:
> >Like you summarized in your email, the need for defining media types
> >for fonts have been brought up on numerous occasions. Many people
> >agreed that defining a top-level "font" media type would be ideal,
> >however after having numerous discussions (including those that you
> >mentioned and also relevant discussions in W3C regarding media type or
> >web font formats) many have expressed their concern that applying for
> >top-level media type would be a lengthy process that is unlikely to
> >bring the desired results.
> 
> I see. I was not aware of W3C's discussion about new top- level media
> type, but I think the concern was exactly same with what Murata-san
> (SC34/WG4 convenor) told us. After the initial decision (to propose the
> top-level media type), SC29/WG11 had found any urgent request to 
> stabilize the media type for 14496-22?
> 

We didn't have any urgent requests to register the media type format, the overall opinion of the group was that it doesn't make sense to spend years trying to register a new top-level type (with an implied risk of not being successful at all) and instead follow the easy route of registering a new type under the "application" top-level type.

> >Consequently, W3C made a decision to apply for 'application/font-woff'
> >media type, and SC29/WG11 has also prepared an application for
> >'application/font-sfnt' media type. The application is part of the
> most
> >recent amendment to ISO/IEC 14496-22 that is being prepared for
> >publication, and has not yet been submitted to IETF.

Decisions made by SC29 and WG11 were not dependent on each other in any way, but some members involved in both groups expressed similar concerns about an attempt to register new top-level type.

W3C has applied and registered 'application/font-woff' type for web fonts in WOFF format. SC29/WG11 has finalized the text of the application but not yet submitted it to IETF. Partially, the reason for not submitting it was (like I said earlier) that there is a renewed discussion about registering top-level 'font' type, and this time quite a few people seem to be positive about the outcome when the application is submitted to IANA. I need to find out more on the current status of this discussion.

> 
> Excuse me, "application/font-sfnt" is already registered, and will be
> mentioned in forthcoming amendment to 14496-22?
> Or, the registration of the media type and the publication of the
> amendment is being processed in parallel?

The text of application for a new media type had to be approved by WG11 and will be added as a new Annex in ISO/IEC 14496-22 once the last amendment is finalized. It has _not_ yet been submitted to IETF.

> 
> >However, there have also been a recent discussion on one of the IETF
> >email lists about font media type, where people expressed their
> >favorable position to the idea of creating a new top-level 'font'
> type.
> 
> When new top-level media type "font" is approved, SC29/WG11 will regist
> yet another media type for 14496-22?

This is the main reason why I am delaying the submission of the media type registration. I the application for a new top-level "font" media type is submitted (with anticipation of its success), I'd rather wait of its approval and then submit a new application for subtypes we need.

Thank you,
Vlad

> 
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki
> 
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 09:51:42 +0000
> "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <vladimir.levantovsky at monotypeimaging.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Dear Suzuki-san,
> >
> >Like you summarized in your email, the need for defining media types
> >for fonts have been brought up on numerous occasions. Many people
> >agreed that defining a top-level "font" media type would be ideal,
> >however after having numerous discussions (including those that you
> >mentioned and also relevant discussions in W3C regarding media type or
> >web font formats) many have expressed their concern that applying for
> >top-level media type would be a lengthy process that is unlikely to
> >bring the desired results. Consequently, W3C made a decision to apply
> >for 'application/font-woff' media type, and SC29/WG11 has also
> prepared
> >an application for 'application/font-sfnt' media type. The application
> >is part of the most recent amendment to ISO/IEC 14496-22 that is being
> >prepared for publication, and has not yet been submitted to IETF.
> >
> >However, there have also been a recent discussion on one of the IETF
> >email lists about font media type, where people expressed their
> >favorable position to the idea of creating a new top-level 'font'
> type.
> >I haven't been (until recently) subscribed to the IETF list and am not
> >aware of any progress or follow-up discussions that may have taken
> >place. I will inquire if there have been any more action taken, but I
> >also hope that some of the AHG members, who are familiar with the
> >subject, may have additional information to share on the list.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Vladimir
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
> >[mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of suzuki toshiya
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:31 AM
> >> To: OTspec
> >> Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> >> Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] top-level media type for ISO/IEC 14496-22?
> >>
> >> Dear Vladimir,
> >>
> >> A few years ago, SC34/WG2, SC34/WG4 and SC29/WG11 had discussed
> about
> >> the media type (MIME) for ISO/IEC 14496-22. The trigger was that it
> >is > needed that all component data in ZIP package for ISO/IEC 29500
> >are > declared with standard media types, but no appropriate MIME
> types
> >for > ISO/IEC 14496-22 were not existing at that time. I remember, the
> >> attitudes of each groups were:
> >> * SC29/WG11, SC34/WG2: top level media type "font" is needed, even
> if
> >> it would be long term issue.
> >> * SC34/WG4: proposal of new top level media type would be very long
> >> term issue, so it is not appropriate solution for ISO/IEC 29500
> >> stabilization.
> >> As a result, SC34/WG4 decided to use application/vnd.ms-XXX as their
> >> own solution.
> >>
> >> After the discussion, if I remember correctly, SC29/WG11 approved
> the
> >> request of top level media type for tonts as the action item. But
> I'm
> >> not about the current situation; not-yet-proposed, or, already-
> >> proposed- and-waiting-response, or, proposed-and-refused. Could you
> >let > me know current status about the media types for ISO/IEC
> >14496-22? >
> >> Recently, the convenor of SC34/WG4 (Makoto Murata) found the similar
> >> issue (no appropriate media types are existing for ISO/IEC 14496-22)
> >> for EPUB. So there might be a possibility this issue would be
> >discussed > again in next SC34 plenary.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> mpsuzuki
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >