Re: Registration of media type application/xhtml-voice+xml

Chris Lilley <> Wed, 13 July 2005 16:59 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6DGxfbR058896; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:59:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j6DGxf93058895; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: majordom set sender to using -f
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6DGxaDN058884 for <>; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:59:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8C74F05B; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:59:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:59:33 +0200
From: Chris Lilley <>
Reply-To: Chris Lilley <>
Organization: W3C
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <>
To: Gerald McCobb <>
Cc:,, "" <>
Subject: Re: Registration of media type application/xhtml-voice+xml
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <>
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On Wednesday, July 13, 2005, 6:33:04 PM, Gerald wrote:

GM> I asked the IESG to postpone the publication of the
GM> application/xhtml-voice+xml media type as an informational RFC.  The
GM> registration is not correct.  It should be
GM> application/xhtml+voice+xml.  The application/xhtml+voice+xml media
GM> type was the original submission.

The entire reason that the +xml suffix was changed from the original
-xml suffix was beczause there were a number of hyphenated types in use
but little/no types where the terms were separated by +.

GM> There is an issue with the original submission: 
GM> One of the reviewers pointed out that "a certain class of error
GM> could be avoided by renaming this
GM> application/xhtml-plus-voice+xml... I don't know of any other "+xml"
GM> [see RFC3023] media types that have a "+" in the name... a
GM> poorly-constructed regexp looking for +xml along the lines of
GM> /\+(.*)$/  would miss this one."

I agree that so far there are no types with a + in the name, and that
using some other allowed separator would be preferable.
GM> 1. In particular there is the work in the W3C Compound Document
GM> Format (CDF) working group.  They are looking at defining a single
GM> media type that will handle the many possible document format
GM> combinations of XHTML, SVG, Voice, SMIL, XForms, etc.  This media
GM> type may include multiple "+" put in a profile attribute.

Probably not (I for one would argue against it, being a member of that
group). But 'may include' is pretty weak.
GM> 2. The argument for having "+" in the subtype is unconvincing,
GM> given that the simplest method to determine if something is XML is
GM> also the safest, that is, if the last four characters are "+xml" or
GM> "/xml" then the document is XML, otherwise it is not. If that has to
GM> be done with regexps, instead of just examining the last four bytes,
GM> that would be /[/+]xml$/.  If type and subtype were split already it
GM> would be /\+?xml$/ for the subtype.


 Chris Lilley          
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead