- 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