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

Gerald McCobb <> Fri, 15 July 2005 13:53 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6FDrblo058302; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:53:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j6FDrbsB058301; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: majordom set sender to using -f
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6FDrZ2K058290 for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:53:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6FDrTRu503292 for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:53:29 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j6FDrTVM433472 for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:53:29 -0600
Received: from (loopback []) by (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6FDrSuX023091 for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:53:29 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j6FDrS4e023085; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:53:28 -0600
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Registration of media type application/xhtml-voice+xml
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003
Message-ID: <>
From: Gerald McCobb <>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:53:26 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM118/03/M/IBM(Build V70_M4_01112005 Beta 3|January 11, 2005) at 07/15/2005 07:53:27, Serialize complete at 07/15/2005 07:53:27
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004C4B788525703F_="
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <>
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

* Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* Gerald McCobb wrote:
>>However, as noted in the Internet-Draft, XHTML+Voice user agents have
>>special processing requirements including support for XML Events and
>>VoiceXML.  An initialized VoiceXML interpreter is a specific 
>>This mime type is limited to XHTML+Voice applications and I don't 
>>to change the limited designation in the internet draft.

>Much of the existing application/xhtml+xml content relies on support of
>a variety of features such as the Macromedia Flash format and scripting.
>I think the litmus test here is simple: are user agents that do not
>support XHTML+Voice but XHTML 1.0/1.1 required to reject application/
>xhtml-voice+xml content as beeing in an unsupported format?

XHTML+Voice adds the voice mode of interaction to web applications.  This
additional mode of interaction is not that important for desktop clients.
Voice Interaction is useful for clients with limited processing, memory,
and network resources, such as cell phones and wireless PDAs.  For clients
that don't accept XHTML+Voice markup it matters whether it has to receive
and ignore additional markup.  For these clients it is important that
applications send markup dedicated to what they support.

>If yes, a new media type is certainly justified. If it is acceptable or
>even encouraged to process the content by ignoring the unknown bits then
>there does not seem to be considerable value in this new type. As you
>pointed out, W3C might at some point produce a recommendation where you
>can use XHTML with inline SVG content; with application/xhtml-voice+xml
>it's not really clear whether XHTML+Voice+SVG content should use
>application/xhtml+xml, application/xhtml-voice+xml, or some third type.

XHTML+Voice adds voice as another mode of interaction with the 
while SVG is in most cases an important informational part of the

>XHTML+SVG content, unless the SVG fragments are in the <head> element
>and referenced via something like <object data="#svg" />, would depend
>even more on inline-SVG support than XHTML+Voice on inline VoiceXML
>support, if we need to define a new media type for each combination of
>XML formats, we'll quickly get a system where it simply does not matter
>whether one uses specialized types or just application/xml.

This is one of the issues before the W3C CDF working group.

>>Are "+suffix" constructs the same as putting "+" within the subtype?  A
>>mime type such as application/xhtml+voice+xml that maps directly to
>>XHTML+Voice is easy for authors to understand.  I still see the "-" as
>>minus.  What does application/xhtml-voice+xml mean but XHTML minus 
>>As you know, XHTML already doesn't have voice...

>And application/xml-dtd is for XML documents without DTD? Registered
>types with "-" typically use the "-" to separate words. As you pointed
>out, there aren't really types for "compound" formats yet; but it is
>also not clear to me whether we should have such types at all. If the
>CDF Working Group is really considering to have a single type for a
>very wide range of combinations, why can't you use that type instead?

I'm talking about a perception that leads to a misunderstanding that I
have already received.  I understand that application/xml-dtd means
"xml dtd" but "application/xhtml-voice" means "xhtml voice" and the
language is "xhtml+voice".
We don't know today what the CDF working group will decide and their
decision is probably a few years away.  In the meantime, there are
XHTML+Voice applications in operation today.

Gerald McCobb
8051 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel. # 561-862-2109 T/L 975-2109