[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Registration of media type application/xhtml-voice+xml
* Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* Gerald McCobb wrote:
>>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.
>Much of the existing application/xhtml+xml content relies on support
of
>a variety of features such as the Macromedia Flash format and scripting.
>I think the litmus test here is simple: are user agents that do not
>support XHTML+Voice but XHTML 1.0/1.1 required to reject application/
>xhtml-voice+xml content as beeing in an unsupported format?
XHTML+Voice adds the voice mode of interaction to
web applications. This
additional mode of interaction is not that important
for desktop clients.
Voice Interaction is useful for clients with limited
processing, memory,
and network resources, such as cell phones and wireless
PDAs. For clients
that don't accept XHTML+Voice markup it matters whether
it has to receive
and ignore additional markup. For these clients
it is important that
applications send markup dedicated to what they support.
>If yes, a new media type is certainly justified.
If it is acceptable or
>even encouraged to process the content by ignoring
the unknown bits then
>there does not seem to be considerable value in
this new type. As you
>pointed out, W3C might at some point produce a
recommendation where you
>can use XHTML with inline SVG content; with application/xhtml-voice+xml
>it's not really clear whether XHTML+Voice+SVG
content should use
>application/xhtml+xml, application/xhtml-voice+xml,
or some third type.
XHTML+Voice adds voice as another mode of interaction
with the application,
while SVG is in most cases an important informational
part of the
application.
>XHTML+SVG content, unless the SVG fragments are in the <head>
element
>and referenced via something like <object data=""
/>, would depend
>even more on inline-SVG support than XHTML+Voice on inline VoiceXML
>support, if we need to define a new media type for each combination
of
>XML formats, we'll quickly get a system where it simply does not matter
>whether one uses specialized types or just application/xml.
This is one of the issues before the W3C CDF working
group.
>>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...
>And application/xml-dtd is for XML documents without DTD? Registered
>types with "-" typically use the "-" to separate
words. As you pointed
>out, there aren't really types for "compound" formats yet;
but it is
>also not clear to me whether we should have such types at all. If the
>CDF Working Group is really considering to have a single type for a
>very wide range of combinations, why can't you use that type instead?
I'm talking about a perception that leads to a misunderstanding
that I
have already received. I understand that application/xml-dtd
means
"xml dtd" but "application/xhtml-voice"
means "xhtml voice" and the
language is "xhtml+voice".
We don't know today what the CDF working group will
decide and their
decision is probably a few years away. In the
meantime, there are
XHTML+Voice applications in operation today.
Regards,
Gerald McCobb
IBM
8051 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel. # 561-862-2109 T/L 975-2109