W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Inconsistency between IETF and W3C: XML fragments and media types

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 22:02:25 -0600
Message-ID: <383CB4D1.E7EBCBAD@w3.org>
To: MURATA Makoto <murata.makoto@fujixerox.co.jp>
CC: timbl@w3.org, simonstl@simonstl.com, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, Tsmith@parc.xerox.com, xsl-editors@w3.org, masinter@parc.xerox.com
just responding to one point, for now...

MURATA Makoto wrote:
> > Anyway... the type="text/xml" in the XSLT spec example is saying:
> > "the stylesheet I'm pointing to is written in XML; if you don't
> > grok XML, don't bother fetching it." Given that interpretation,
> > I don't think it really matters that the pointer includes a fragid,
> > regardless of the sort of "type mismatch error" in givin a MIME
> > type for an XPointer node.
> We have to agree on some interpretation.  In your interpreation, if
> a CSS stylesheet having the text/css media type is referenced by a
> PI with type="text/xsl", those user agents which do not know XSL
> don't fetch the CSS stylesheet.  Is this OK?

Yes. This is a risk that the author of the document who
writes type="text/xsl" must be prepared to accept.

This is why I find it odd that the type= attribute is mandatory;
the safe thing, in general, is to leave it out and force the
client to discover the media type of the stylesheet by fetching it.

Dan Connolly, W3C
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 23:02:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:17 UTC