These comments are as much about the general "IETF MIME type registration from W3C recommendation" as they are about this particular registration: ------------- It might be helpful if the registration template explained that "ccxml" stood for "Call Control eXtensible Markup Language" for use in voice browser applications, and that the registration is in a document intended to become a W3C recommendation. I'm not sure this is necessary, but since we're getting W3C recommendations registering MIME types, I wondered if making the registration template just a little bit more explanatory would be useful. Your translation from HTML to ASCII left out line breaks before heading lines, which made your template hard to read. Specific comments:
this case, the security issues of RFC1738, section 6, should be considered.
RFC 1738 has been superseded quite a while ago, by 2396.
In addition, because of the extensibility features for CCXML, it is possible that "application/ccxml+xml" may describe content that has security implications beyond those described here. However, if the processor follows only the normative semantics of this specification, this content will be ignored. Only in the case where the processor recognizes and processes the additional content, or where further processing of that content is dispatched to other processors, would security issues potentially arise. And in that case, they would fall outside the domain of this registration document.
I don't think it's true that it falls outside the domain, and the argument is just confusing. One major purpose of the "security considerations" section is to help firewall and security perimeter vendors decide what they need to do when they see content marked with this type. If receivers are likely to interpret extensions and the extensions are likely to cause security problems if interpreted, you should say so. If the document explains, in allowing for extensions, how to avoid security problems, then say so.
Interoperability considerations:
This specification describes processing semantics that dictate behavior that must be followed when dealing with, among other things, unrecognized elements.
Because CCXML is extensible, conferment
conformant?
"application/ccxml+xml" processors can expect that content received is well-formed XML, but it cannot be guaranteed that the content is valid CCXML or that the processor will recognize all of the elements and attributes in the document.
I think the main purpose of "interoperability considerations" is to talk about reasons why multiple implementations might not interoperate. I don't know if you have any of those, but I don't think what you say here (that someone might send non-conformant content labeled with this MIME type) really fits. Are all conforming CCXML implementations guaranteed to be interoperable? If not, why not?
Published specification:
This media type registration is for CCXML documents as described by this specification.
I'm not 100% sure if this is necessary, but I'd expect if the template were to appear elsewhere to see a bibliographic citation, e.g., "Voice Browser Call Control: CCXML Version 1.0", W3C Working Draft, 30 April 2004, W3C, <http://www.w3.org/TR/ccxml/> Is "this specification" (or the whole specification) precise enough? In some other cases, a single W3C recommendation defines many different data types. Perhaps it would be useful to say, somewhere, e.g., that the MIME type refers to XML bodies that conform to the DTD/Schema referenced in Appendix B and C and interpreted by the rules in the cited specification.
Additional information: Magic number(s):
There is no single initial octet sequence that is always present in CCXML documents.
While this section is titled "Magic number", I think what we're seeing in MIME registrations for XML content is a description of how to recognize CCXML if it isn't labeled. It would be useful here to identify the namespace expected and the likely root XML element name(s).
Person & email address to contact for further information:
RJ Auburn, <rj@voxeo.com>.
Should there be a W3C contact as well?
Intended usage:
COMMON Author/Change controller:
The CCXML specification is a work product of the World Wide Web Consortium's Voice Browser Working Group. The W3C has change control over these specifications.
Or perhaps the W3C contact address should be listed here. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net