* Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* 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@gmx.net> 07/14/2005 10:21 AM To: Gerald McCobb/Boca Raton/IBM@IBMUS cc: ietf-types@iana.org, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org 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@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/