W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Media types

From: Edwin Ortega <ortegae@wns.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:24:01 -0800
Message-ID: <006801c19ed4$20630460$32a2583f@val6000>
To: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>; "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:23 AM
Subject: RE: Media types


> To a certain extent, I think the discussion hasn't been very useful
though.
> At the end of the day, a piece of software has to do something with the
> document (does that include the content-type?).  In the example given, the
> piece of software would be an XSLT piece of software, not HTML software.
I
> think the mess of content-type, namespaces, first element and manifests
> would be far better served if we talked about how the software uses the
> current set of solutions, the problems that arise with that, and potential
> solutions in the context of the software.  Yes, it's the age old use-case
> driven approach but it always works.
>
> I tend to agree with TimBL because the first child is the first thing a
> piece of software has to understand, therefore it is most useful to be
able
> to route to the right piece of software.  Although this point tends to be
> somewhat moot because a lot of software will do the right thing with the
> document even if the content-type was wrong because the URL is the main
> routing component, not the content-type.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Mark Baker
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:44 AM
> > To: Paul Prescod
> > Cc: www-tag@w3.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Media types
> >
> >
> > > Consider this example from the XSLT specification:
> > >
> > > <html xsl:version="1.0"
> > >       xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
> > >       xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/strict">
> > >   <head>
> > >     <title>Expense Report Summary</title>
> > >   </head>
> > >   <body>
> > >     <p>Total Amount: <xsl:value-of
> > select="expense-report/total"/></p>
> > >   </body>
> > > </html>
> > >
> > > It's a perfect example. This document is logically XSLT, not HTML.
> >
> > In this example, I'd say it's both HTML and XSLT.  However, HTML has
> > the advantage in determining how that XSLT should be
> > interpreted, since
> > it's the container.
> >
> > For example, if HTML had an element called "do-not-process" that meant
> > that any content whtin should not be dispatched to alternate
> > processors,
> > and that your XSLT was within this element, would you still
> > say it was a
> > stylesheet?
> >
> > I agree with TimBL when he says;
> >
> > "The significance of any nesting of one withing the other is
> > to be defined by
> > the nesting (outermost) specification [...]"
> >
> > (from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0081.html )
> >
> > MB
> > --
> > Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> > http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 12:42:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:04 GMT