* 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(_at_)hoehrmann(_dot_)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/