- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:37:42 +0900
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>
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. 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, 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. Is it recommended that the specifications be amended through errata, and implementations be changed accordingly? 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 -- Kazuyuki Ashimura / W3C Team Contact for Voice Browser WG & MMI WG mailto: ashimura@w3.org voice: +81.466.49.1170 / fax: +81.466.49.1171
Received on Monday, 10 July 2006 20:38:44 UTC