* 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?
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.
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...
The draft should be clear about which of these references are
informative and which normative.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern(_at_)hoehrmann(_dot_)de ·
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/