proposed media type registration: application/voicexml+xml

[ben at morrow.me.uk]

At  4pm on 16/12/03 Martin Duerst wrote:
> I just by chance realized that you had removed the 'charset'
> parameter from the registration for application/voicexml+xml,
> and also for application/ssml+xml. I have found something similar
> in other recent registration proposals.
> 
> Here is why I think this is really not a good idea:
> 
> First, we start to get into a patchwork where some types
> allow the 'charset', and others don't. Assuming that there
> is something like generic XML processors (e.g. parsers)
> (which is the whole point of XML), how should such a parser
> know whether the 'charset' parameter is allowed or not,
> and keep up with new registrations?
> 
> Second, there are various scenarios a charset parameter in
> the header is automatically generated, or where it's much
> easier to generate it than to avoid it.
<snip>
> Again, if they use generic technology,
> getting the 'charset' into the header is much more straightforward
> than putting it into the body.

The usual intent when omitting the 'charset' parameter from the
registration is that the XML *must* be encoded in UTF8 or UTF16. If
this is done, then the entity will not need to include a charset
declaration in the body either, and will be universally understood
everywhere. I would suggest that those registrations which do not
specify a charset be updated to state that encodings other than UTF8
and UTF16 may not be used.

Ben