* Gerald McCobb wrote:
2.1 application/xhtml+voice+xml Usage
The application/xhtml+voice+xml media type is intended to be a media descriptor for XHTML+Voice documents.
This media type registration is not intended for email usage.
The draft does not really explain why there is a need for such a type in the first place; why don't you use application/xhtml+xml?
Optional parameters: version: refers to the XHTML+Voice language version in the document. Acceptable values are 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 (default).
What are the processing requirements for this parameter?
charset: has the same meaning as the text/html media type. See section 2 of [RFC 2854].
A word seems to be missing here. It is not really clear why the draft refers to RFC 2854 rather than RFC 3023 or RFC 3236.
Security considerations:
XHTML+Voice is an extension of XHTML and has the same security issues as XHTML. These include interpreting anchors and forms in HTML documents, and scripting languages and other dynamic interactive capabilities. See section 7 of [RFC 2854].
So the extensions to XHTML have no security considerations?
File extension(s): html, htm, mxml, xvml
I don't think .html and .htm should be listed here, they are already in common use for application/xhtml+xml and text/html.
4. Fragment Identifiers
See section 3 of [RFC 2854].
It is unclear what this means, RFC 2854 and RFC 3236 have inconsistent rules for fragment identifiers and XHTML+Voice adds new ID attributes so that the fragment identifier namespaces are different.
6. Security Considerations
Security considerations for this media type are discussed in the MIME type registration that appears in section 4.
Section 4 has no security considerations...
7. References
The draft should be clear about which of these references are informative and which normative. -- 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/