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RFC 1738 has been superseded quite a while ago, by 2396.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(_at_)voxeo(_dot_)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