>* Gerald McCobb wrote:
>>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.
>As I pointed out earlier, I do not really see a good reason to add
this
>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2005-March/000662.html
>type. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt notes the possibility of
using
>application/xhtml+xml for XHTML M12N-based formats.
>http://www.voicexml.org/specs/multimodal/x+v/12/ also takes steps to
>increase the likelyhood that XHTML+Voice documents degrade in down-level
>clients that just support application/xhtml+xml, so indeed, as noted
in
>the Internet-Draft, the type would be of limited use.
I'm not sure what you mean by "degrade."
It is true that XHTML+Voice follows the XHTML 1.1 modularization standard and
the XML-Events, VoiceXML, and X+V markup is isolated from the XHTML
by their respective namespaces. An XHTML+Voice application running
successfully as an XHTML-only application has been thoroughly tested
on MS Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox browsers.
However, as noted in the Internet-Draft, XHTML+Voice
user agents have special processing requirements including support
for XML Events and VoiceXML. An initialized VoiceXML interpreter
is a specific requirement. This mime type is limited to XHTML+Voice applications
and I don't propose to change the limited designation in the internet
draft.
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-media-type-reg-04.txt
>notes 'While it is possible for a given media type to be assigned
>additional names, the use of different names to identify the same media
>type is discouraged'.
This mime type is for user agents that support the
specific processing requirements of XHTML+Voice applications.
>>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."
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-media-type-reg-04.txt
>notes 'More generally, use of "+suffix" constructs should
be done with
>care given the possibility of conflicts with future suffix definitions'.
Are "+suffix" constructs the same as putting
"+" within the subtype? A mime type such as application/xhtml+voice+xml that
maps directly to XHTML+Voice is easy for authors to understand. I
still see the "-" as minus. What does application/xhtml-voice+xml
mean but XHTML minus voice. As you know, XHTML already doesn't have voice...
Regards,
Gerald McCobb
IBM
8051 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel. # 561-862-2109 T/L 975-2109
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx>
07/14/2005 10:21 AM
To:
Gerald McCobb/Boca Raton/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
ietf-types@xxxxxxxx, ietf-xml-mime@xxxxxxx
Subject:
Re: Registration of media type application/xhtml-voice+xml
* Gerald McCobb wrote:
>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.
As I pointed out earlier, I do not really see a good reason to add this
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2005-March/000662.html
type. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt notes the possibility of using
application/xhtml+xml for XHTML M12N-based formats.
http://www.voicexml.org/specs/multimodal/x+v/12/ also takes steps to
increase the likelyhood that XHTML+Voice documents degrade in down-level
clients that just support application/xhtml+xml, so indeed, as noted in
the Internet-Draft, the type would be of limited use.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-media-type-reg-04.txt
notes 'While it is possible for a given media type to be assigned
additional names, the use of different names to identify the same media
type is discouraged'.
>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."
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-media-type-reg-04.txt
notes 'More generally, use of "+suffix" constructs should be
done with
care given the possibility of conflicts with future suffix definitions'.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/