world/* mentioned at the end of this. -Jan
P.S. I think that model/* or geometry/* or 3D/*
would be better for us. Just my opinion.
Subject: Re: MIME type chemical/*
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:21:49 +0200
Sender: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
(I've set reply-to to the ietf-types list. I've also forcibly added
the document authors to that list. I will continue to set reply-to to
that list on all responses I make on this matter. Let's have our fight,
but not all over the place!)
What made me change my mind on chemical/* was the fact that some of
these types are *object models* - where you can do things like
creating a 3D model of the object and pull at the bonds to see where
they break first, add a few more hydrogen atoms and calculate its
changed reactivity and so on.
Several of the types are also used by multiple classes of program - this
is opposed to things like WordPerfect, which is only used by word process=
ors.
Synthesis is just the most fanciful aspect of it.
I would have liked to change it into a generic model/* type (something th=
at
you can expect to interact with, rather than just present), but I didn't
think it would be worth it; there are arguments in favor of chemical/*
(like I don't have to care *at all* about it).
Discussions of new subtypes of chemical would go through the usual mechan=
ics
before registration; there are no rule changes proposed here.
If chemical/* goes through, I expect that world/* will be registered as
soon as the world/* proponents have assembled a coherent proposal and
achieved consensus on it (which might not be soon.....)
harald A