W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > February 2005

fragments and mime types [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 February 23]

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:54:20 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03034541C8@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org  On Behalf Of Paul Grosso
> Sent: Monday, 21 February, 2005 15:19
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 February 23

> 8.  Associating stylesheets
>     We have had several requests to issue some clarifications
>     on use of fragment identifiers in URIs to referenced
>     stylesheets:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0022
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Feb/0030
> We discussed that the resource should be retrieved per
> the URI (not counting the frag id), then any frag id would
> be interpreted according to the type of the retrieved resource
> to produce what the SS PI refers to.  Then, the application
> using the SS PI may look at the type pseudo-attribute to
> help it how to interpret the returned (sub-)resource.
> Norm: frag id are interpreted by the mime type sent back
> by the server (so the type pseudo-att is ignored until
> whatever (sub-)resource is returned and determined).

It turns out we had a potentially related issue long ago; see
where Makoto and Simon StL asked to make the type attribute
optional, saying among other things:

>People at the IETF-XML-MIME ML believe that XML fragments (which 
>are referenced by fragment identifiers) do not have media types.  

Whatever we decide to do with the stylesheet PI spec, we better
check with folks like Makoto before going too far.

Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 22:54:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:34 UTC