W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Transition request: first publication of WG Note "Associating XML Documents with XForms using the XML-Stylesheet PI"

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:02:00 +0100
Message-ID: <418900F8.1060306@expway.fr>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org, Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, chairs@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> I took a quick peek at this note this morning and I think it has a
> couple of fundamental problems.
> First and foremost, I think it's inappropriate to hijack the xml-stylesheet
> PI to associate an editor with a document. An editor is not a stylesheet
> except by the broadest of definitions.
> Given that processing instructions are simple and cheap, what compelling
> reason is there not to introduce a new one, such as "xforms-editor"?
> Second, if the working group is determined to abuse the xml-stylesheet
> PI, it strikes me that the type "application/xml" is way too broad for
> the purpose. The type psuedo-attribute is the only way an application
> can distinguish one PI from another.
> How is an XForms editor more appropriate for "application/xml" documents
> than any other imaginable kind of processing?
> I humbly suggest that this note should be redrafted, ideally using a
> different PI target but at a bare minimum using a more appropriate MIME
> type.

I couldn't find what to trim off this email. I second every single 

Robin Berjon
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:02:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:25:06 UTC