I asked the IESG to postpone the publication
of the application/xhtml-voice+xml media type as an informational RFC.
The registration is not correct. It should be application/xhtml+voice+xml.
The application/xhtml+voice+xml media type was the original submission.
There is an issue with the original
submission:
One of the reviewers pointed out that
"a certain class of error could be avoided by renaming this application/xhtml-plus-voice+xml...
I don't know of any other "+xml" [see RFC3023] media types that
have a "+" in the name... a poorly-constructed regexp looking
for +xml along the lines of /\+(.*)$/ would miss this one."
I believe this argument is not strong
enough to prevent approval of the application/xhtml+voice+xml media type:
1. In particular there is the work in
the W3C Compound Document Format (CDF) working group. They are looking
at defining a single media type that will handle the many possible document
format combinations of XHTML, SVG, Voice, SMIL, XForms, etc. This
media type may include multiple "+" put in a profile attribute.
2. The argument for having "+"
in the subtype is unconvincing, given that the simplest method to determine
if something is XML is also the safest, that is, if the last four characters
are "+xml" or "/xml" then the document is XML, otherwise
it is not. If that has to be done with regexps, instead of just examining
the last four bytes, that would be /[/+]xml$/. If type and subtype
were split already it would be /\+?xml$/ for the subtype.
Regards,
Gerald McCobb
IBM
8051 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel. # 561-862-2109 T/L 975-2109
"Scott Hollenbeck" <sah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
07/12/2005 06:09 PM
To:
<ietf-types@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
<iana@xxxxxxxx>, Gerald McCobb/Boca
Raton/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:
RE: application/xhtml-voice+xml vs.
application/xhtml-vocie+xml
That registration was just added. The author
has been asked to review it
and confirm correctness. He hasn't replied yet. I've cc'd him
here to let
him know about the issue.
-Scott-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Lilly [mailto:blilly@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:08 PM
> To: ietf-types@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: iana@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: application/xhtml-voice+xml vs. application/xhtml-vocie+xml
>
> draft-mccobb-xplusv-media-type-04 provides a registration
> template for type application/xhtml-voice+xml. The IANA
> registry now has an entry for application/xhtml-vocie+xml (i
> and c transposed in voice).
>
> Can this be fixed, please. Hopefully, nobody else has
> noticed the ...vocie... type and it can be safely elided...
>