W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Not text/xsl

From: Nadir Amra <amra@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:51:58 -0500
Message-ID: <392D845E.F4817B06@us.ibm.com>
To: xsl-editors@w3.org
Has there been a decision on the MIME type for XSL docs?  Is it text/xsl?

>
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message-ID: <3796FBFB.ABF54E22@jclark.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:09:48 +0700
> From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
> To: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
> CC: xsl-editors@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Not text/xsl
>
> The one place where it is mentioned is in an example.  The document has
> to have that example, and I can't do that example without mentioning a
> media-type.  To me text/xsl makes much more sense than application/xsl.
> The best I can do is to add a note saying that the media-type hasn't
> been decided and text/xsl is not registered yet.
>
> MURATA Makoto wrote:
> >
> > At the ietf-xml-mime  mailing list, Ned Freed (a co-author of MIME RFCs)
> > said that the media type for XSL should belong to the application
> > top-level media type rather than the text type.  We certainly
> > need to discuss.  Until a final decision is made, the WD should not
> > mention "text/xsl".
> >
> > http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/
> >
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 15:52:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:50 GMT