- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:31:30 -0500
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Paul Grosso scripsit: > Everyone on the call felt that use of the xml-stylesheet > here was wrong. We had some discussion. On the contrary; I thought it was correct. I probably won't make the call this week, as I'm at XML 2004 and already have one teleconference that day. > Most of us are certainly opposed to them using > type="application/xml". I think it is the Right Thing, since 1) it tells the truth and 2) XML stylesheets are self-identifying (you can look at the root namespaces to see what kind of stylesheet you have). OTOH, you can't reliably tell just by inspection whether a document is a CSS stylesheet or not, so the type pseudo-attribute text/css is necessary to mark it. > Arnaud would like to know more about the motivation and > why they are using the xml-stylesheet PI instead of > something else. Because it's functioning as a stylesheet. If document A points to document B, then when A is to be displayed, B is displayed instead, with parts of A plugged into it as specified by XForms rules. > We noted that the XSLT spec says (last para before section 2): > > The MIME media types text/xml and application/xml [RFC2376] > should be used for XSLT stylesheets. That certainly does not mean that text/xml and application/xml should not be used for other kinds of XML documents. A fortiori, it does not exclude their use for other kinds of stylesheets, either. In other news: > Norm has suggested a possible update to XLink at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2004Nov/0033 > where we say that an element that has an xlink:href but > does not have an xlink:type should be treated as if it > had a "simple" link type. +1 > Norm continues to recommend that we make a profile that is the > same as XML 1.1 except to change the bnf so that you can't have > any sort of doctype decl. +1 -- If you understand, John Cowan things are just as they are; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan if you do not understand, http://www.reutershealth.com things are just as they are. jcowan@reutershealth.com
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 16:31:59 UTC