- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:39:53 +0000
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m24ool1c8m.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Hi folks, I'm offline, so perhaps the answer is somewhere in the minutes, but they're not readily available. I seem to recall that we decided explicitly not to register a MIME type for XProc (e.g., application/xproc+xml). What was our rational? Was it simply that we didn't think we needed one, or that we wanted to explicitly piggyback on RFC 3023bis (though I think the "+xml" media type would accomplish that as well)? I ask because I find myself in a situation where I want to distinguish between XSL transformations and XProc pipelines. Following the convention of the XML Stylesheet PI and the script and link elements in HTML, it's tempting to say: <transform name="foo" type="text/xsl" fileref="foo.xsl"/> <transform name="bar" type="application/xproc+xml" fileref="bar.xpl"/> Except I can't because there isn't a MIME type...so if we aren't going to define a MIME type, what should I do in this case? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | When told of a man who had acquired http://nwalsh.com/ | great wealth, a sage replied, 'Has he | also acquired the days in which to | spend it?'--Solomon Ibn Gabirol
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 15:51:23 UTC