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

Re: [VoiceXML 2.1] New scripting media types

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:42:28 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0607101442x2afe68a2mb96d98f925e1b3c1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kazuyuki Ashimura" <ashimura@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, "W3C Voice Browser Working Group" <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>


On 7/10/06, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> 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.
> 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,

FYI, it's already there;


> 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.

I don't think it would affect it at all.  Whether the type is
registered or not has no bearing on the architecture of the software
that supports them (except insofar as registered types tend to become
better supported, all other things being equal).  Specs should
continue to do what they need to do to support interoperability, and
dropping support for well deployed types would work directly against
that objective.

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

The definition of "OBSOLETE" in RFC 4288 (which RFC 4239 fails to
normatively reference, I note) says;

  "Media type registrations may not be deleted; media types that are no
   longer believed appropriate for use can be declared OBSOLETE by a
   change to their "intended use" field; such media types will be
   clearly marked in the lists published by the IANA."
     -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/4288#section-9

However little guidance is given as to what "appropriate for use"
means.  Though the text/* types have well known drawbacks, they are
also the only types supported by the vast majority of deployed
software and so seem perfectly appropriate for use to me.

Hopefully software will be upgraded to support the new types in the
future, but the old types are here for a while yet.

Just my 2c.

Received on Monday, 10 July 2006 21:42:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:12 UTC