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
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 23:02:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:49 GMT