W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > February 2009

p:http-request: c:response/c:body/@content-type value

From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:14:59 +0100
Message-ID: <ebaca5bf0902060814h74171d1fmae6f5849a24dd236@mail.gmail.com>
To: XProc Comments <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>

  Hi,

  In p:http-request, when using @override-content-type, should
c:body/@content-type contain the overridden content type, or the
overriding one?  For instance, with the following request:

    <c:request override-content-type="text/plain" .../>

should we get:

    <c:response ...>
       <c:header name="Content-Type" value="application/xml"/>
       ...
       <c:body content-type="text/plain">
          ...
       </c:body>
    </c:response>

or instead:

    <c:response ...>
       <c:header name="Content-Type" value="application/xml"/>
       ...
       <c:body content-type="application/xml">
          ...
       </c:body>
    </c:response>

  Personally, I think the former is more logical, because
c:body/@content-type represent the type used to build the c:body,
the original content type being still available in the headers.
But I can't find a clear response in the CR.

  A related question is: should we use the full Content-Type
header value, or just the media type within it for @content-type?
For instance, should we get:

    <c:header name="Content-Type" value="text/xml; charset=utf-8"/>
    <c:body content-type="text/xml">

or:

    <c:header name="Content-Type" value="text/xml; charset=utf-8"/>
    <c:body content-type="text/xml; charset=utf-8">

in the c:response?

  Regards,

-- 
Florent Georges
http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 16:15:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 February 2009 16:15:40 GMT