Graham Klyne (GK@dial.pipex.com)
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:34:19 +0100
At 21:07 12/08/99 +0200, Philipp Hoschka wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>>
>> At 12:43 12/08/99 +0200, Philipp Hoschka wrote:
>
>> It does contain reference to a different MIME content-type, audio/vnd.wave,
>> which appears to be based on the same Microsoft file format (but which does
>> not contain a definition of or reference to the WAV file format).
>
>what this means in practice is that the two MIME types audio/vnd.wave
>and audio/wav will denote exactly the same format, unless i'm missing
>something
>
>is there a good reason to have the same format registered twice
>under different names ?
I would say that change control of a format that is part of an IETF
standard might be one. (But I defer to IETF procedure experts on this.)
>draft-ema-vpim-wav-00.txt appears to be redoing work that has already
>been done in the RFC I quote. The only difference is that it does not
>actually define the format, but provides references to its definition.
>According to the MIME type registration rules, this is enough.
I assume you are referring here to RFC 2361.
I cannot see a registration of MIME type audio/vnd.wave in this. I also
note that IANA does not list any registration for audio/vnd.wave.
If I am missing something, can you please indicate very precisely (document
and section number) what it is.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Mar 19 2002 - 01:04:39 IDT