* 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@hoehrmann.de · 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/