W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2006

Re: [VoiceXML 2.1] New scripting media types

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:40:44 -0500
To: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1152567644.8748.87.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 05:37 +0900, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
> Dear TAG Members,
> 
> # resent to public TAG mailing list
> 
> During the development of VoiceXML, the Voice Browser Working Group
> has encountered an issue that it thinks should be submitted to the
> TAG. The problem is about how newly registered media types should be
> integrated back into existing specification.

In the general case, that would seem to involve travelling
backwards in time ;-)

> The case at hand is the new media type 'application/ecmascript' [1]
> not normatively defined yet, but which is recently became a new
> Informational RFC (RFC4329). This document obsoletes the old types
> 'text/ecmascript' and 'text/javascript' and states that the only
> appropriate media type for external scripts is
> 'application/ecmascript'.
> 
> The question is: once this media type comes out,

comes out in what sense?

>  how will it affect
> existing specifications that support external ECMAScript scripts and
> that either mention obsoleted unregistered types, or don't mention
> types at all.

Could you be more specific? I don't see any references to
'text/ecmascript' nor 'text/javascript' in
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-voicexml21-20050613/

Could you perhaps give a complete example? something like...

  1. W3C publishes VoiceXML 2.1 spec
  2. implementor A puts 'text/ecmascript' in his code
     (this would be at his own risk, not at
     at W3C's recommendation, as far as I can tell)
  3. web server XYZ serves scripts with 'text/ecmascript' ; they work
  4. web server XYZ updates to use 'application/ecmascript' on
     the advice of IETF
  5. implementor A's code stops working on scripts from XYZ






> Is it recommended that the specifications be amended through errata,
> and implementations be changed accordingly?

I recommend that people think carefully about versioning issues
in each specific case; I don't have any advice to offer that
generalizes across specs.

There is some advice in the QA Framework
  http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-norm

and there's some discussion in the ESW wiki...
  http://esw.w3.org/topic/NormativeReferences


> 
> Could you please provide comments by July 18, 2006?
> Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Kazuyuki
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 10 July 2006 21:40:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:41 GMT