RE: Multiple result-documents, client-side transformations, and U RIs

> B. Smedberg wrote:
> > 
> > After further reading, I now understand that the href specified in 
> > result-document is relative to an implementation-defined URI. 
> > And that 
> > the nature of this URI is outside the scope of the XSLT spec.
> > 
> > However, I still feel that a standardized protocol for 
> (absolute URI) 
> > linking to result-documents would be a significant aid, 
> even if these 
> > links were transformed internally by browser 
> implementations to other 
> > formats. Is there a WG to consider the xslt: URI scheme as a 
> > separate spec?
> > 
> 
> I don't think this is within the scope of the XSL WG's 
> activity. Although
> the activity seems worthwhile, I don't think I can offer 
> advice on how it
> would be best to pursue this: you need to talk to other 
> vendors in the same
> line of business to see whether there is scope for agreeing a common
> approach.
> 
> Michael Kay


Perhaps to bring it closer to the WG's sphere of interest,
using the document function, in 1.0, produces quite a variety of 
results; with minimal consistancy.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl/rfc2396/ shows the lack of consistancy.

One of the authors of the rfc states that the update is currently being
worked.
  It does leave a mess behind, even if out of scope of the wg.
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1738.txt may be an improvement, I don't
know.

The reference from the current wd's is definately within your remit,
especially after the comments on this thread.

are there alternatives?

regards DaveP

 

- 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 
system.

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk

Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 05:43:16 UTC