W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > January 2010

Re: my thoughts on Mike Kay's AssocSS comments

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:34:39 +0100
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u6i1f1isidj3kv@zcorpandell.linkoping.osa>
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:45:41 +0100, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
>> Sent: Wednesday, 2010 January 13 13:01
>> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: my thoughts on Mike Kay's AssocSS comments
>>
>> Mike's comments are at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-
>> comments/2009Dec/
>> 0001
>>
>> > 1. It would be nice to have a more detailed explanation
>> > of what has changed.
>>
>> I'm hoping Henry will be able to write this.
>>
>> > 2. Since the specification is partially implemented in
>> > current browsers, it would be useful to give users and
>> > implementors some advice on how to achieve interoperable
>> > behavior taking the current legacy into account. For example,
>> > it would be useful to note that the pseudo-attribute
>> > media="text/xsl" works on many current browsers though
>> > disallowed by the spec, while the pseudo-attribute
>> > media="application/xml+xslt" is legal but poorly supported
>> > by current products.
>>
>> Actually, I think Mike is referring to the type attribute,
>> not the media attribute here.
>>
>> In fact, during our earlier discussion, we decided that we
>> would NOT disallow type="text/xsl", so our current text that
>> says that the type attribute MUST match RFC 2616 needs to be
>> changed.  Maybe just change MUST to SHOULD.
>
> Actually, I looked at 2616, and it doesn't disallow text/xsl
> because 2616 just defined the general syntax and then says
> "Use of non-registered media types is discouraged" which
> is like a "should not".
>
> So, if I'm reading all this right, our current wording does
> not disallow type="text/xsl".

Indeed.


> Given that Mike thinks it does, I suppose that argues even
> more strongly for the need of an informative note.

I'd be happy to add a note, though I'm not sure what it should say.


> paul
>
>>
>> I continue to hesitate to have this spec say much about the
>> values of the PAs, but I could live with an informative note
>> about text/xsl.
>>
>> > 3. It might be worth mentioning that the charset pseudo-attribute
>> > is ignored if the stylesheet is an XML document.
>>
>> If this is true, we can have an informative note.  I wouldn't
>> be surprised if this were true, but I also wouldn't be
>> surprised if this issue were more complicated.  I'm hoping
>> someone on the WG can weigh in here (John?).

I think at least in some browsers, charset is always ignored.


>> > 4. It might be worth a reference to the XSLT specification
>> > which gives further information on the use of this processing
>> > instruction with XSLT stylesheets.
>>
>> We can add a note and a non-normative reference.  The relevant
>> section is http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#embedded
>>
>> paul
>>
>
>


-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:35:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:35:15 GMT