- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:22:56 +0000 (GMT)
- To: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
I won't be able to make the telcon, so here are my thoughts on the
XForms stylesheet issue.
It seems to break down into a couple of questions:
- Should they use the xml-stylesheet pi?
- The pi is not intended to be only for XSLT, so it seems
reasonable to use it *if* this use of XForms can be considered to
be application of a stylesheet. Can it? I don't know enough
about XForms to be sure. The Note talks about "editor" documents
- are these in effect stylesheets that display an XHTML document
in such a way that it can be edited?
- If they should use the pi, what mime type should they use?
- Is the mime type intended to determine the kind of stylesheet?
The original example was text/css, which seems clear enough. But
XSLT uses text/xml and application/xml (at least, those are the
types the XSLT spec says XSLT stylesheets should have until an
XSLT-specific one is defined; the xml-stylesheet example in the
XSLT spec uses text/xml).
If it is intended to determine the kind of stylesheet, using
application/xml clearly doesn't make sense. But it seems that in
practice mime types are not adequate for this. New types are not
created whenever a new XML application is invented. There is a
theory that the mime type should be enough to let you parse the
document, and then you can determine what to do with it. In that
case, application/xml would fit. Is this theory blessed by the
TAG? Does it correspond to what real browsers and other
stylesheet-applying applications do? It has the disadvantage
that you have to fetch the stylesheet before you can determine
whether it's any use to you.
-- Richard
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 18:22:59 UTC