W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Media types

From: Edwin Ortega <ortegae@wns.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:23:47 -0800
Message-ID: <005701c19ed4$17f879e0$32a2583f@val6000>
To: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@rbii.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@rbii.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Media types


> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 12:33 pm, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Let's put it this way. The XSLT fully defines the meaning of the
> > document. In fact, this document was cut and pasted OUT of the XSLT
> > specifications. That specification claims that it is XSLT. The XHTML
> > specification, on the other hand, specifically says that such a
> > document is not "a strictly conforming XHTML 1.0 document".
> 
> It really doesn't matter what the specifications say.  You have to 
> associate a processor (read interpreter) with the document before it 
> makes sense one way or another. If I run an XHTML processor over it, 
> it will try to interpret it as such. If I run an XSLT processor over 
> it, it will try to interpret it as such. If I try to run a JSP 
> processor over it, it will try to interpret it as such.
> 
> There is nothing in the document that would force a choice one way or 
> the other. Claims that the outermost element should be the thing that 
> dictates the processing are misguided IMNSHO.... as I have yet to see 
> a truly universal processor capable of the infinite ways of processing 
> an XML file we might come up with.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 12:26:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT