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:[email protected] · 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/