The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) is now completing its resolution of issues raised during the review of the Candidate Recommendation version of VoiceXML 2.1 . Our apologies that it has taken so long to respond.
Following the process described in  for advancement to Proposed Recommendation, this is the VBWG's formal response to the issue you raised, identified as '111-9':
The suggested media type used for VoiceXML 2.1 is the same as for VoiceXML 2.0. The registration request for this media type is still pending within the IETF. If the registration is accepted, the VBWG will consider updating the errata for VoiceXML 2.0 or, if there is time, add an informative appendix to VoiceXML 2.1.
Please indicate before 14 November 2005 whether you are satisfied with the VBWG's resolution, whether you think there has been a misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
If you do not think you can respond before 14 November, please let me know. The Director will appreciate a response as to whether or not you agree with the resolution. However, if we do not hear from you at all by 14 November 2005, we will assume that you accept our resolutions.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-voicexml21-20050613/ is unclear about which media type to use for VoiceXML 2.1 content. VoiceXML 2.0 notes that application/voicexml+xml might be registered, but this is not clear from VoiceXML 2.1; or what the definition of the type would be.
Please change VoiceXML 2.1 to clearly indicate appropriate media types and which of the types must be supported by implementations.
* Matt Oshry wrote:
>The suggested media type used for VoiceXML 2.1 is the same as for
>VoiceXML 2.0. The registration request for this media type is still
>pending within the IETF. If the registration is accepted, the VBWG will
>consider updating the errata for VoiceXML 2.0 or, if there is time, add
>an informative appendix to VoiceXML 2.1.
My understanding is that the IESG approved the registration, publication
as RFC is not significant at this point. I also don't think that an in-
formative appendix would be appropriate here, my initial request was to
clearly point out which media types must be supported by VoiceXML 2.1
implementations, which an informative appendix cannot define.
Bj?rn H?hrmann ? mailto:[hidden email] ? http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 ? Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 ? http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim ? PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ? http://www.websitedev.de/